lake kivu pls validation report
DESCRIPTION
Sub Saharan African Challenge Program, Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site Validation report. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa.TRANSCRIPT
1
2
SUB SAHARAN AFRICA CHALLENGE PROGRAMME
Findings of the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site Validation Team
A Mission Undertaken to Identify Key Entry Points for Agricultural Research
and Rural Enterprise Development in East and Central Africa
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
12 Anmeda Street, Roman Ridge,
PMB CT 173, Accra, Ghana
2012
3
Citation: FARA 2012. Sub Saharan African Challenge Program, Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site
Validation report. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa.
FARA encourages fair use of this material. Proper citation is requested.
Members of the Validation team
Dr. Mateete Bekunda (Chairman, Uganda), Ir. Elysee B. Mudwanga (DR Congo),
Ms Elize Lundall-Magnuson (South Africa), Dr. Kehinde Makinde (Rwanda), Dr.
Peter Okoth (Kenya), Dr. Pascal Sanginga (DR Congo), Dr. Emily Twinamasiko
(Uganda) and Dr. Paul L. Woomer (Kenya)
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)
12 Anmeda Street, Roman Ridge,
PMB CT 173, Accra, Ghana
Tel: + 233 302 772823 / 302 779421
Fax: + 233 302 773676
Email: [email protected]
ISBN 978-9988-8438-4-3 (PDF)
4
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 6
1. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 FARA AND THE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA CHALLENGE PROGRAMME ....................................................... 12
2.3 INITIAL HYPOTHESES ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4 VALIDATION TEAM MISSION........................................................................................................................ 14
2.5. VALIDATION TEAM COMPOSITION. ............................................................................................................ 15
3. METHODS EMPLOYED ................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 GENERAL APPROACH.................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2. APPROACHES TOWARD SPECIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS .............................................. 18
3.3 ITINERARY AND WORK PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.4 EVALUATING AND REFINING THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESES....................................................................... 21
4. THE SETTING................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2 CLIMATE, GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 25
4.3 VEGETATION AND LAND USE....................................................................................................................... 26
4.4 POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING....................................................................................................... 27
5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES................................................................................ 29
5.1 PRODUCING MORE FOOD AT REDUCED COST. ............................................................................................. 29
5.2 DIVERSIFYING AGRO-ENTERPRISE FOR WEALTH CREATION AMONG THE POOR..................................... 32
5.3. IMPROVING MARKETS ................................................................................................................................. 34
5.4 SUSTAINING AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 36
5.5. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ........................................ 40
5.6. REFOCUSING POLICIES ............................................................................................................................... 40
6. ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................................. 44
6.1 PRODUCING MORE FOOD: AGRICULTURAL INPUT SUPPLY ........................................................................ 44
6.2 IMPROVING MARKETS: NANDOS AND THE NYAMBUMBA UNITED FARMERS GROUP .............................. 47
6.3 DIVERSIFYING ENTERPRISES 1: MONEY FROM HONEY .............................................................................. 47
6.4 DIVERSIFYING ENTERPRISES 2: EMERGING FROM CONFLICT (AGAIN) .................................................... 49
6.5 SUSTAINING AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: HILLSIDE CONSERVATION .................................................... 51
6.6 FOSTERING BIODIVERSITY: HARD EDGE VERSUS BUFFER ZONES............................................................ 53
6.7 STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONS: PRIVATE SECTOR DYNAMICS IN EASTERN CONGO ........................... 55
7. ENTRY POINTS FOR RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 58
8. REFINED HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 62
8.1 THE FARMER ASSOCIATION HYPOTHESIS. ........................................................................................ 62
8.2 AND 8.3 THE MARKET ACCESS AND FRIENDLY FARM HYPOTHESES ....................................................... 63
8.4 THE BUFFER ADVANTAGE HYPOTHESIS ..................................................................................................... 64
8.5 THE PARTNERSHIP SYNERGY HYPOTHESIS................................................................................................ 65
8.6 THE ARMED WITH KNOWLEDGE HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................... 65
8.7. THE COMMUNITY LEVERAGE HYPOTHESIS .............................................................................................. 66
9. ASSEMBLING RESEARCH TEAMS ............................................................................................................ 67
10. THE RESULT FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IMPACTS ................................................................ 68
11. WAY FORWARD ................................................................................................................................... 69
12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 71
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 72
13. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 75
APPENDIX 1. VALIDATION TEAM COMPOSITION AND CONTACT DETAILS ........................................................... 75
5
APPENDIX 1 LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS AND CONTACTS IN THE PLS................................................. 76
APPENDIX 3. SENIOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION IN DR CONGO ................................................................. 78
APPENDIX 4. SENIOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION IN RWANDA .................................................................... 80
APPENDIX 5. SENIOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION IN KABALE, UGANDA ..................................................... 82
APPENDICE 7. SUMMARY ISSUES ARISING FROM STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS ..................... 84 APPENDIX 7: DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH ENTRY POINTS ............................................................................ 86
APPENDIX 8. TENTATIVE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE LAKE KIVU PILOT LEARNING SITE ........................ 94
6
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFRENA Agroforestry Research Network for East and Central Africa
AHI Africa Highlands Eco-regional Programme. ASARECA - Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa.
BDS: Business Development Services
BNF: Biological Nitrogen Fixation CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (NEPAD)
CBOs Community-based organisations
CCD Convention to Combat Desertification
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIAT- International Centre for Tropical Agriculture.
CN: Concept Note COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
ECA: Economic Commission for Africa (United Nations)
ECABREN East and Central Africa bean Research Network
ECAPAPA - East and Central Africa Programme on Agricultural Policy Analysis.
EU: European Union F&M: Facilitation and Mentoring Services FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
FARA Forum on Agricultural Research in Africa
FARA Forum on Agricultural Research in Africa
GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research
GIS Geographic information systems
IAR4D Integrated agricultural research for development
IARIs International Agricultural Research Institutions
ICRAF – International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
INERA: Institut National d‘Etudes et Recherche Agricole INRM Integrated natural resource managment
IPM Integrated pest management
ISAR : Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda
LG: Local Government LI: Lead Institution
MC: Management Committee MDGs Millennium development goals
NAADS – National Agricultural Advisory and Development Services. NARES National agricultural research and extension institutions
NARIs National agricultural research institutions
NARO: National Agricultural Research Organisation
NEMA - National Environmental Authority. NEPAD New Partnership for African Development
NGOs Non Governmental organisations
NRM – Natural Resources Management. NRM Natural Resource management
PC: Programme Coordination PLS: Pilot Learning Site PRSP: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSC: Programme Steering Committee
R&D – Research and Development. RSSP:
Rural Sector Support Project
SRO: Sub-Regional Organization
7
SSA CP: Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme
SWC – Soil and Water Conservation.
TF: Task Forces
UCA: Uganda Cooperative Alliance
UNFFE: Uganda National Farmers Federation
UNIR : Université Nationale du Rwanda
UWA: Uganda Wildlife Authority VT: Validation Team
8
1. Summary The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program seeks to overcome food insecurity, reverse
natural resource depletion and foster rural enterprise development. It designated three
geographic areas in East-Central, Southern and West Africa as Pilot Learning Sites where
interdisciplinary teams of agricultural scientists will work closely with development
specialists, private sector and farmer organizations to conduct impact-oriented research
designed to overcome the persistent constraints to agricultural production and enterprise
development. One of these areas is the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site where DR Congo,
Rwanda and Uganda intersect. This equatorial highland site covers approximately 20,000
km2
and consists of volcanic mountains surrounded by hills and valleys. It has a semi-humid
to humid climate with mild to cool temperatures and is bounded by Lake Edward to the north
and Lake Kivu to the south.
Three important features contributed to the selection of the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site
as a focus for agricultural and developmental research. The site holds high concentrations of
population and poverty with 90% of its 12 million people reliant upon small-scale agriculture.
The site hosts unique natural resource endowments that are protected within several national
parks but under threat from surrounding populations. The site has a history of civil unrest
over the past two decades and its vigorous re-emergence from conflict offers opportunities to
better understand how agricultural policies, institutional re-organization and market-led
development interact. The site‘s deep soils and favourable climate offer strong potential for
agricultural growth but its resource base is rapidly degrading, largely due to mismanagement
of steep cultivated slopes and wetland valleys. The area is somewhat remote from
international markets but supports vigorous cross-border trade and growing internal demand.
Services offered to small-scale agriculture through research and extension remains weak and
organizations operating within the site require both financial assistance and peer support.
It is one thing to identify a priority area for impact-oriented actions and yet another to
establish a successful research and development program that positively impacts upon its
diverse stakeholders. First, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, through its Sub-
Saharan Africa Challenge Program, sought partnership within the sub-region and a paradigm
to guide their actions. Then ASARECA was appointed to implement activities of the
program, with the International Centre for Topical Agriculture (CIAT) serving as the lead
institution in partnership with the Africa Highlands Initiative (AHI) and the Institut des
Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR).
The emergence of Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) presented
an opportunity to address persistent problems in new ways. IAR4D involves an innovative
set of principles, an integrated research agenda and a recognized need for greater
organizational capacities and flexibility among research partners. Research is not merely
intended to develop and escort new technologies to farmers but also empower farmers to
better understand and respond to changing circumstances as they emerge. Farm enterprises
and commodity production are no longer viewed in isolation of one another but rather seen as
interacting with natural resource management, markets and policies. Collaboration is no
longer approached in a top-down manner through assigned tasks but rather partnerships are
forged that recognize the importance of participation and interaction balanced with individual
needs and goals. IAR4D is based upon key entry points for change and engages different
disciplines and stakeholders within iterative problem-solving. A Validation Team was
established to identify critical entry points for cutting edge research with focus on new
opportunities and how this would respond to development challenges; validate, refine and
9
suggest additional research hypotheses; examine capacities within the Pilot Learning Site and
determine how different stakeholder groups would be involved.
The Validation Team mission was commissioned by ASARECA and CIAT during
October 2005. The team consisted of eight members from DR Congo (2), Kenya (2),
Rwanda (1), South Africa (1) and Uganda (2). Its members were experienced agricultural
scientists, research administrators, entrepreneurs and marketing, information and
development specialists, each with established credentials to work within interdisciplinary
settings. The team relied upon several field survey methods including literature review plus
secondary data collection, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, documenting
and characterising examples into case studies. Analysis of research challenges was based on
five priority areas, producing more food at less cost, diversifying agro-enterprises for wealth
creation, improving markets, sustaining agriculture and natural resources and policy and
institutional development. The team also gave due considerations to ASARECA‘s aspirations
for balancing cutting edge science with people-oriented impacts and the addressing the food
security and income generation needs. During 15 days spent in field investigation in DR
Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, the team examined agricultural and marketing activities in 12
locations and conducted four stakeholder workshops, eight focus group discussions with
farmers‘ associations, 14 interviews with input retailers and stockists, and over 24 interviews
with key informants representing different institutions and individuals in the resource-to-
consumption and policy chain. Seven case studies that illustrate key interdisciplinary issues
within the Pilot Learning Site are presented in this report.
Production of food in the Lake Kivu PLS is characterized by cultivation of beans, banana,
and maize in various combinations of two or more crops in the humid area and sorghum,
maize and potatoes, bush beans and bananas in drier areas. Cabbage, onions, carrots and
tomatoes are cultivated for market. Smallholder livestock production is limited to a few zero
grazing units or communally grazed indigenous cattle and goats but a few large commercial
dairies are established in valley bottoms. The limited use of purchased farm inputs due to
farmers‘ limited capacity to invest in farm improvement has resulted in resource degradation.
Smallholder farming may be thus characterized as cycle of low yields, food deficits, little or
no marketable surpluses, and an inability to check land degradation. Eight entry points are
identified for producing more food, both as crops and livestock, and at reduced costs.
Intensified production should be based upon three approaches: improving yield and
market quality of food crops, introducing new high value crops and integration of crop and
livestock production. Specific research and development entry points were identified to
guide the development of scientific technologies and/or the refinement and transfer of
existing ones to improve disease and pest control, provide new improved varieties and
breeds, enhance nutrient recycling and trigger value addition.
The Pilot Learning Site has strong potential for increased production but entrepreneurship
and enterprise spirit remain weak. This is due in part to limited experience in adding value to
products but may also be attributed to poor market access and infrastructure, small fragmented
and degraded farmlands and weak institutional support. Livelihood opportunities within the
site must become expanded through agro-enterprise development and diversification. This will
reduce risk and increase the framers‘ competitiveness on local, national and international
markets and will enhance their capacity to generate incomes. Market development, product
development and diversification into high value products, were seen as important entry points
for developing technologies that will link small-scale farmers in marginal areas to markets.
Markets for most major commodities are imperfect because prices are established through
bargaining in absence of adequate market information. Key market participants are itinerant
village collectors, stationary market brokers, long distance traders and agro-processors. Making
the marketplace more transparent establishing farmers‘
10
collective bargaining are two critical challenges. Seven entry points for rural enterprise
development and improved marketing are identified within this report.
Sustainable use of the natural and agricultural resources calls for measures to counter the
effects of continuous, long-term hillside cultivation and increased pressure on wetlands and
forests. Land management technologies must be identified and promoted to ensure that hillside
farming enterprises will offer sufficient economic incentives to encourage better land
conservation measures and that the exploitation of the wetlands is based upon sufficient
information that allows for profitable utilization without compromising watershed integrity.
Greater opportunity must also be sought for perennial crop establishment on steep hillsides
and the improvement of contour hedges. This need may accommodate the domestication of
useful indigenous plant species as a means of fostering plant biodiversity and the fauna
dependant upon them. Such mechanisms are particularly important among farms within the
buffer zones surrounding national parks and other conservation areas. Four entry points
toward better resource and biodiversity protection were identified by the team.
The SSA-CP is adopting the IAR4D approach which calls for multi-stakeholder
participation in the design of technology interventions. Therefore all stakeholder
organisations and institutions will gradually transform to encompass this new research
paradigm. Organisational change should be seen in people‘s skills and attitudes, processes
and procedures and the necessary adjustment in structures. Capacity development
programmes will be designed to equip managers to understand, coordinate and facilitate the
process of organisational change and create platforms for simultaneous ―learning together‖ of
teams at different levels. Individual scientists and stakeholder teams will acquire disciplines
for impact oriented research and inter-disciplinary skills to be able to work in teams.
Information and knowledge management mechanisms and monitoring and evaluation systems
will be incorporated in the capacity building programmes to enhance institutional and societal
learning. The design of the capacity building programme will give opportunity for stronger
institutions to nurture weaker ones, also drawing from the strength and expertise of other
regional and international institutions to establish fairly uniform regional standards. The
farmer organisations will be given special attention to ensure that they are empowered to
enhance their role in decision making and demand articulation. They also need skills to be
able to negote and participate in debates that affect them. Four entry point opportunities were
identified within the areas of IAR4D and organizational change.
There are already a number of policies that support different aspects of agricultural
production but in some cases the mechanism and capacities for implementing these policies are
lacking. Policy research will analyse the extent to which these policies are conducive and
provide incentives for small holder production and market integration and for allowing
scientists and innovators to appreciate the results of their intellectual outputs. The process of
policy research will be improved by creation of platforms for facilitating participatory policy
debates, to increase the contribution of stakeholders in dialogue and advocacy. Three entry
points for policy research are raised within this report.
The identification of the entry points was in response to the six hypotheses proposed by
FARA secretariat as having particular relevance to enterprise development within the Lake
Kivu Pilot Learning Site. The Validation Team examined these and, where applicable, refined
and expanded them to additionally cover farmer decision making and address differences in
land management, market development and natural resource protection as they occur within
the site. Fourteen working hypotheses were generated to address basic component questions
within the main hypotheses.
It is considered that research and development teams will be constituted following the
IAR4D principles, to conduct activities addressing the refined hypothesis. The VT proposes a
vertical integration within each experimental site, and horizontal partnerships across
11
countries. Within each country, the major institutions and individual stakeholders along the
resource-to-consumption and policy continuum should be identified and encouraged to
participate in research for development teams. These should include national agricultural
research institutes, government extension services, non-governmental organizations, civil
society organizations, farmers‘ organizations, traders, transporters, processors, exporters,
private business sector, government departments, and international research centres. Across
countries, partnerships between teams and institutions should be established. The Pilot
Learning Teams will identify and select specific locations for conducting research, based on
biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics. It will be important to start with locations
where teams can build on, add value to, and take advantage of existing institutions and
capacities (human, material, and social) in order to achieve and demonstrate impacts. The
potential for scaling out/up within the pilot learning site and beyond should be one of the
important criteria for site selection.
The long-term vision of the Kivu Pilot Learning Site is to contribute to poverty elimination in
East and Central Africa. This can be achieved through research for development activities
that aim at improving food security, income, livelihoods and environmental sustainability in
the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site. The VT suggests four outcomes that must be combined
together to generate impacts. These are: (i) increased utilization of market driven
technologies to improve agricultural productivity and conserve natural resources; (ii)
diversified enterprise options and improved market access; (ii) enhanced organizational
capacity of stakeholders for impact oriented research enhanced, and (iv) enhanced decision-
making capacity of different stakeholders to influence policy formulation and
implementation.
12
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where livelihoods and food security
continue to deteriorate and the number of Africans living in poverty has increased by 50% in
the last 14 years (Amoako, 2003). As a result, Africa continues to take a disproportionate
amount of food aid. The Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site (PLS) spans approximately 20000
km2
where north-eastern Rwanda, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo)
and south-western Uganda intersect. The equatorial highland site consists of tall volcanic
mountains surrounded by hills and valleys. It has a semi-humid (800 mm yr-1
) to humid
(>2000 mm yr-1
) climate and mild temperatures with greater precipitation and cooler temperatures occurring at higher elevations. Geologically, the site falls within the western arm of the Great Rift Valley (the Central Albertine Rift ) between two highland lakes, Lake Edward to the north and Lake Kivu to the south.
Population densities range from 400 to 700 persons km-2
with two thirds of the population
lives below the poverty line. Over 90% of the population relies on subsistence agriculture
with average farm sizes of 0.5 ha. The area is also endowed with several globally important
conservation areas including Bwindi, Mgahinga, Queen Elizabeth, Virunga and Volcanoes
National Parks. This is a region of exceptionally high biodiversity and levels of endemism,
including the only natural habitat of the endangered mountain gorilla and there is pressing
need for viable development strategies to protect this biodiversity while improving the
livelihoods of those living around it. The area is described as ―emerging from conflict‖ with
DR Congo, Rwanda and Uganda having experienced civil wars 5, 10 and 20 years ago,
respectively. As a result, large differences in infrastructural and market development and
institutional support exist within the site.
2.2 FARA and the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program
The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) is a regional organization bringing
together the major stakeholders in agricultural research in Africa. FARA‘s mission is to
enhance and add value to the effectiveness and efficiency of agricultural research systems.
FARA‘s vision for African agricultural research saw agricultural production growing at 6%
per annum and providing the base for agriculture-led industrialization. One of the
mechanisms for ensuring that FARA‘s agenda is geared towards greater impact on African
people, was the development of the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme. A Challenge
Program (CP) is a time-bound, independently-governed program of high-impact research,
that targets the CGIAR goals in relation to complex issues of overwhelming global and/or
regional significance (and global impact), and requires partnerships among a wide range of
institutions in order to deliver its products.
The SSA-CP‘s mission seeks to add value to and enhance the impact of ongoing
agricultural research for development in sub-Saharan Africa. The Programme aims to
transform the way that sectors and institutions at all levels approach agricultural research.
The goal of the SSA CP is to bring about improved rural livelihoods, increased food security
and sustainable natural resource management throughout sub-Saharan Africa as a result of
greater impact from agricultural research for development. It will thereby contribute to
meeting the poverty and hunger targets of the Millennium Development Goals, and NEPAD
13
goals as set out in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
(CAADP).
Figure 1. The four pillars of Integrated Agricultural Research for Development
and their important interactions.
The extensive consultation process that culminated in the development of the SSA CP
adopted the ―Integrated Agricultural Research for Development‖ (IAR4D) paradigm that can
foster synergies among disciplines and institutions, along with a renewed commitment to
change at all levels from farmers to national and international policy makers. The IAR4D
takes a systems approach that goes beyond INRM, to encompass as well the domains of
policies and markets, and the effects that these have on the productivity, profitability, and
sustainability of agriculture.
The general approach to rural transformation involves intensification of subsistence-
oriented smallholder farming systems, better managing natural resources while intensifying
their use, developing more efficient markets and developing enabling policies. IAR4D
requires additional mechanisms to foster integration of these four dimensions, and a new way
of doing research and development. Therefore the support pillars of IAR4D include 1)
promotion of organizational and institutional change to enable cross-disciplinary research and
development and multi-institutional collaboration; 2) capacity building for project teams,
farmers, and scientists in African institutions; 3) information and knowledge management
and 4) continuous monitoring and evaluation and a systemic approach to impact assessment
(Figure 1).
The thematic research areas and support pillars are in line with both the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in Africa (ASARECA) strategic objectives and the
14
Science Council priorities for CGIAR research. The goals of the CGIAR Science Council are
to 1) sustain biodiversity for current and future generations, 2) producing more and better
food at lower costs, 3) reduce rural poverty through agricultural diversification and emerging
opportunities, 4) alleviate poverty while maintaining managing water, land and forest
resources; and 5) improving policies and facilitating institutional innovation to support
sustainable reduction of poverty and hunger. The Validation Team directed its efforts toward
these goals throughout its mission to the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site.
The scientific programme of the SSA CP will target removing significant constraints to
sustainable improvement of livelihoods, as diagnosed at specific locations. It will focus on
cutting edge science that can contribute to achieving developmental people oriented impacts.
For the first phase of the SSA CP, three Pilot Learning Sites (PLSs) have been selected by the
African sub-regional organizations for agricultural research. Within the Eastern and Central
Africa sub-region, the SSA CP activities are implemented by ASARECA, with the
International Centre for Topical Agriculture (CIAT) serving as the lead institution in
partnerships with the Africa Highlands Initiative (AHI) and the Institut des Sciences
Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR).
2.3 Initial hypotheses
The FARA Secretariat (2004) proposed six hypotheses as having particular relevance to rural
enterprise development within the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site. The Validation Team was
asked to examine these hypotheses as entry points for cutting-edge agricultural research
within the Lake Kivu PLS and to revise and expand these hypotheses as necessary. As these
are intended to guide research projects rather than individual studies, these hypotheses are
necessarily global in nature. These hypotheses follow …
H1 Strong producer organizations have increased bargaining power and ability to
collectively market produce and thus increase returns (income) to land and labor.
H2 Investments to sustain and maintain the natural resource base are more sustainable
when they are linked to market-oriented production or when there are financial
incentives for conserving natural resources and biodiversity.
H3 Increased livelihood options linked to markets including joint management for buffer
zone inhabitants will decrease pressure on conservation areas and biodiversity and
increase returns to land and labor.
H4 Investment in partnership arrangements that integrate research and development
expertise and perspectives will achieve greater impact through scaling out islands of
success.
H5 Innovative information organization and sharing systems will enhance uptake of
technologies and improve decision making.
H6 Strengthened local governance through improved community facilitation improves
ability to influence development policy and advocate for support to local marketing
and natural resource management initiatives.
At first impression, these hypotheses seem to be useful in aligning individual research
activities within larger developmental goals. On closer impression, however, the hypotheses
appear skewed toward enterprise development and research administration rather than
research approaches, farmer decision making and, indeed, they seem to be broadly applicable
to many places in addition to the Lake Kivu area. None of these hypotheses actually
addresses differences in land management, market development or natural resource
15
protection as they occur within the Pilot Learning Site. The process of examining and
expanding these hypotheses was one of the major challenges before the Validation Team and
the outcomes from that effort appear later within this report.
2.4 Validation Team mission.
The terms of reference for the VT specified the purpose, scope, objectives and expected
outputs of the VT. They also suggest the methodology for the VT. The Validation Team was
expected to:
1. Consult different stakeholders and suggest a list of critical entry points based on field
realities, priorities, and opportunities for wealth creation amongst the poor whose
livelihoods depend on agriculture and natural resources.
2. Analyze available science and suggest innovative and original ideas for implementing
IAR4D to achieve developmental impacts.
3. Validate current hypotheses (see SSA CP and PLS priorities), refine and if necessary
suggest additional hypotheses; and assess if current hypotheses can be scaled-up to
national and regional levels. Examine and recommend a balance between markets, food
security, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.
4. Suggest critical entry points for research, with focus on new opportunities (e.g.
introduction of new crops, high value crops, products etc) and threats (climate change,
genetic erosion, environmental degradation) given the constant increase in population.
5. Examine and suggest what should be the ―science‖ and ―cutting edge research‖ to
respond to development targets and challenges in the PLS.
6. Examine the uptake pathways and critical stakeholders in each of the critical entry
points and suggest how to involve them in the entire research process.
7. Suggest how SSA CP can integrate and add value to regional (ASARECA), national and
local priorities. Harmonize expectations of different partners (Science Council, Donors,
ASARECA, countries, stakeholders, Farmers) and integrate entry points and hypotheses
into Science Council priorities.
8. Examine capacities in the PLS, and determine what and how to involve different
stakeholder groups (private sector, business sector, civil society, farmers organizations,
government, policy).
9. Within the delimitation of PLS, suggest intervention sites (experimental sites) for the
task forces.
10. Prepare a draft Logical framework that suggests an impact pathway on how integrating
the four pillars of the SSA-CP will lead to poverty alleviation, food security,
environmental sustainability and wealth creation.
2.5. Validation Team composition.
The VT was composed of eight members from different disciplines, institutions and
background selected by the Management Committee of the PLS. The team had a mixture of
regional experts and experienced scientists doing similar work, and who had complementary
skills and expertise.
1. Professor Mateete Bekunda, Soil Scientist and Chair of the VT, Makerere University,
Uganda
2. Dr. Pascal Sanginga, Rural Sociologist, CIAT, Uganda
3. Dr. Kehinde Makinde, Agricultural Economist, ISAR-Rwanda
16
4. Dr. Peter Okoth, Information and Konowledge Management, TSBF-CIAT, Kenya
5. Dr. Paul Woomer, Crop Improvement, SACRED AFRICA, Kenya
6. Dr. Emily Twinamasiko, Institutional analysis and organisational change, IAR4D,
NARO, Uganda
7. Mr. Elysee Mudwanga, private business sector, Pharmakina-Bukavu, DR Congo
8. Dr. Elisabeth Lundall-Magnuson, Entomologist and Member of the Facilitation and
Mentoring Services, Agricultural Research Council, South Africa
Although each member of the team had individual responsibilities to address one of the areas
below, the VT adopted an integrated team approach to achieve synergies amongst team
members expertise and skills.
1. INRM (soil conservation, water management, soil fertility, watershed management,
wetlands, fisheries, forestry, conservation, wildlife)
2. Crop Improvement (genetic improvement, integrated pest and disease management,
agronomy, horticulture)
3. Markets (agribusiness, post-harvest handling and livestock products)
4. Socio-economics (livelihoods, gender, nutrition and policies and Impacts
5. Information and knowledge management including GIS
6. Organizational development and institutional capacities for IAR4D
17
3. Methods Employed
3.1 General approach
The VT relied upon a combination of analytical and descriptive, inductive and deductive
methods, quantitative and qualitative approaches with a holistic system perspective rather
than disciplinary components. These methods and approaches were developed in a way to
avoid the temptation of developing a shopping list of entry points and research hypotheses.
Rather they were meat to focus on more innovative ideas (what is new and how is it
different?) and more integrated holistic perspectives leading to a systematic process of entry-
points identification and priority setting. The suite of methods employed included literature
review and secondary data collection, key informant interviews, focus group discussions,
case studies, market chain analysis, institutional capacity assessment and spatial analysis.
More detailed description on each of these approaches follows.
Literature review and secondary data collection. The exercise to generated a list of
documents that provided secondary data and information that the validation team used to
analyze available science and suggest innovative and original ideas (business unusual—what
will be different, and how it will be done differently to implement IAR4D) for testing
hypotheses and for achieving the developmental impacts, and for adding value to regional
and national research and development priorities. The team developed a preliminary list of
type of information needed to validate the hypotheses and determine priority entry points.
The collection and analysis of these documents and secondary data continued throughout the
validation exercise.
Key Informant Interviews. Based upon the restated research hypotheses, a check-list was
developed to assist in the process of verification and validation of research hypotheses and
determination of possible entry points based on stakeholders experiences, perceptions and
expectations. The stakeholders be consulted are the key actors along the ―resources-to-
consumption‖ and policy system. These include farmers and farmers‘ organizations, local
government and policy actors, development organizations, market chain actors, private
business sector, government technical and administrative services, national agricultural
research institutes, Agricultural Universities, politicians, etc. See Appendix 1 for the list and
contacts of Key Informants.
During field visits, different stakeholders were approached in various manners. Colleagues
within national agricultural research systems were provided a full briefing on the SSA-CP and
FARA, and the role of the Validation Team in launching the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site
was explained. Then, the importance of entry points for new research was discussed.
Agricultural administrators, such as District Agricultural Officers, Agricultural Extension
Supervisors and National Park Superintendents, were advised of the potential for
developmental research and rural enterprise development within their areas, and the current
constraints to agriculture and potential opportunities for market-led development were
discussed. In many cases, SSA-CP and FARA documents were photocopied and provided to
scientists and administrators. Local non-governmental organizations, farmers and their
associations were approached in a different manner. Often we were introduced to the
organization or farmer group by a local agricultural officer. The team described its mission as
assisting the agricultural research community to improve the relevance of its research. When
asked how they might benefit, it was made clear that no immediate returns were
18
forthcoming, but a strong possibility existed that they could become research partners or
provide research site in the not-too-distant future. Agricultural input suppliers and agro-
processors were advised that the team is conducting a rapid survey and we required
information from them to be considered within a new agricultural development and research
program. In cases where something of interest was noted along the roadside, we simply
greeted the farmer or bystanders, introduced ourselves as scientists, asked a few questions and
if we may take a photograph and thanked them for their cooperation. The team was able to
communicate with different stakeholders in an impressive assortment of languages including
English, French, Kiswahili, Kinyarwanda, Runyankore and Rukiga. In general, all informants
were interested in our activities and cooperative except for some merchants who were
otherwise busy with customers. Only in one case did a park official state that we required a
letter from his superiors before he could release information (that was otherwise available
over the internet!).
Focus Group Discussion. We used the techniques of ―appreciative inquiry‖, a positive
approach to change that focuses on the collective wisdom, knowledge, strategies, attitudes,
skills, and capabilities of the organization at its best. It is a strategy for intentional change, a
process of collaborative inquiry, based on interviews and affirmative questioning, that
collects and analyse success stories of a community or an organisation. At the level of
farmers‘ groups, we were guided by the ― asset-based approach‖ of the sustainable livelihood
analysis (SLA) framework to analyse the main factors that affect people‘s livelihoods, and to
gain a realistic understanding of what shapes people‘s livelihoods and how the various
influencing factors can be adjusted so that, taken together, they produce more beneficial
livelihood outcomes. This approach was useful to identify the promising opportunities and
strategies they can use to build their livelihood assets for achieving better livelihood
outcomes in rural communities. In each PLS country, the Validation Team organized a
Senior Stakeholder Consultation that combined brainstorming and small working focus group
discussions to suggest critical entry points and researchable areas.
Case studies. Throughout the mission and after each visit and interview, VT members were
tasked to build some case studies documenting and characterizing examples that have shown
successful outcomes, impacts and performance of organizations that R&D institutions in the
PLS have been associated with. The analysis of these cases helped to identify ‗success
factors‘ and examine critical entry points for research and science that can help to scale up
success, and address researchable constraints that hinder development and livelihood
improvements. The case studies were built in a way that examines how the different thematic
areas of IAR4D (intensification, NRM, markets and policies) and the support pillars
(partnerships and institutions, facilitation, information and knowledge management, and
impacts) are integrated (or not) to bring about changes in people‘s livelihoods. The case
studies were also built around the key hypotheses of the Lake Kivu PLS (markets-led
intensification, farmers organizations, buffer zone management, partnerships, information
and knowledge sharing, and policies).
3.2. Approaches toward specific research and development goals
Team members were required to develop specific approaches to recovering and synthesizing
information concerning their disciplinary responsibilities described in Section 2.5 that
complimented the goals of the CGIAR Science Council.
19
Producing more food. This component of the Validation Team mission considered the
potential for greater food production through both food cropping and livestock enterprises.
Food crops were examined with regard to their potential for genetic improvement, presence
of insects and disease, expression of nutrient deficiency symptoms and their relationship to
one another within cropping systems. These factors were assessed through field
observations, discussions with farmers and consultation with agriculturalists such as district
agricultural officers, extension specialists and researchers. Special attention was paid to the
availability and price of key farm inputs such as seed and fertilizers by visiting merchants and
conducting a short, formal, closed-and-open-ended survey. The trends in the availability and
price of these inputs were examined with respect to their distances travelled through supply
pipelines.
Expanding rural enterprise. The analysis of community agro-enterprise was guided by the
resources-to-consumption (R-to-C) approach that permits a wide analysis of the entire
production or value chain and its different players, and the forward and backward linkages
between resources management, production, processing, marketing and consumption, and
investments in resource base and other livelihood assets. At the community level, a
participatory market chain diagnosis was used to rank different enterprise options, identify
their bottlenecks and constraints, and investigate different actions to overcome them for
achieving a more competitive production chain. Community-level group discussions were
triangulated with interviews with key informants, market visits, interviews with traders and
processors. These options were characterized following the Ansoff’s matrix of product-
market mix, to determine strategies for increasing the marketing opportunities and
competitiveness of small hold farmers. This analysis was complemented by a review of a
number of sub-sectoral analysis studies of selected crop enterprises (potatoes, banana, beans
and sorghum) that helped to further understand the whole value chain from the provision of
inputs, production, transportation and commercialization of the commodity.
Improving markets. Stakeholder analysis was used to assess the interests of market actors
(individuals, groups and institutions) that are important to the success of the proposed
program or are ultimately affected either positively or negatively by the program. Market
chain analysis was used, as appropriate, to identify participants in the product demand and
supply chain in order to evaluate the perceptions, expectations and recommend appropriate
entry points for market-based interventions. Furthermore, quantitative and qualitative data
from secondary sources was combined with key informant interviews to explore market
opportunities for traditional and value-added products and also identify issues for follow up
research.
Sustaining natural and agricultural resources. Smallholder farmers in the densely
populated highlands of the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site (LK-PLS) face major constrains
because of high population densities and stressed natural resources consequent upon
increased demand on them. Indicators of some of these stresses and approaches to mitigate
them have been documented in print as research outputs, reports from development
organisations and institutional planning documents. Collation, evaluation and summary of
information from available documents was aimed at identifying background information
concerning the resource characteristics in the PLS and the capacity to sustain continued
production. The VT gathered data during field visits through field observations and
photography particularly relying upon dialogue with land managers.
20
Fostering biodiversity. The validation focused upon the elements of biodiversity within the
PLS that form part of conservation efforts, interacting with various stakeholders to determine
the status of current and planned conservation efforts. It examined interactions between
conservationists and neighbouring communities and the impacts that population and land use
pressures exert upon adjacent protected areas. Also considered was the enforcement of
current protection policies, the sense of responsibility held by those living around the park
and their knowledge of local biodiversity. Particular attention was paid to buffer zones
surrounding the parks and the opportunities for income generation within them.
Strengthening institutions and policies. A rapid organizational assessment tool was
developed to understand the status, capacity and key issues affecting key stakeholder
organisations and institutions (Organisations, Governance, Legal and policy frameworks) in
the PLS to determine relationships/linkages/interactions, concerns, expectations ( or interests)
and capacities in connection with the SSA-CP. Participation analysis matrix was developed to
describe the characteristics, interests, capacities, concerns and expected contribution (e.g.
technologies, facilitators). Then using a task analysis check list, we were able to indicate in
what activities in the IAR4D innovation process the different stakeholders are likely to be
involved in technology development, policy formulation and review, farmer empowerment
and product development.
3.3 Itinerary and work plan
The schedule of the VT was arranged in such a way to combine literature review and
secondary data gathering, then stakeholders‘ consultations, key informants interviews, field
visits to farmers organizations and market and enterprise visits within the PLS were
conducted. When larger towns such as district or provincial headquarters were visited, the
process of collecting secondary information was resumed. Senior Stakeholder Consultations
were held in Kabale (11 October), Goma (16 October) and Butare (22 October). Present at
the meetings were representatives from NARS, the ministry of agriculture, agricultural
extension, local universities, development organizations and NGOs. These meetings were
attended by 15 to 25 persons and lasted from three to five hours. After introductions and
general discussion, these informants were split into 2 or 3 working groups to identify farming
constraints and opportunities and their findings reported in plenary at the meetings conclusion.
Every few days, several hours were devoted to a Validation Team meeting and writing up
various team member responsibilities. The final six days of the mission were
spent synthesizing information, preparing publication quality materials and finalizing the
report. The itinerary of the validation team and its major tasks at each site is presented in
Table 1 and Figure 2.
21
Table 1. Itinerary and tasks of the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site Verification Team.
date location country tasks October
5-9 Kampala Uganda Conduct Verification Team briefing with ASARECA, the
Management Committee, and the CIAT the lead institution.
Develop team work plan and itinerary. Collect background
information and conduct key informants interviews with
ASARECA, NARO, National Agricultural Advisory Services,
Uganda National Farmers Association, Uganda Wildlife
Authority, Uganda Cooperative Alliance, CIAT and Makerere
University. Conduct market visits (Uchumi and Nandos.
Appointment with Mukwano and Shoprite cancelled).Survey
agricultural stockists (5) October
10-12 Kabale Uganda Field visits and discussion with farmers associations and farmer
success stories (3). Conduct Senior Stakeholder Consultation.
Visit District Local Government Chairman, District
Agricultural Officer, District Surveyor and National Forest
Authority offices, NARO ARDC Scientists. Survey
agricultural stockists (2). October
13-14 Kisoro Uganda Field tour of eroded hillside farms and Mgahinga and Bwindi
National Park buffer zones. Visit District Agricultural,
Extension and Fiseheries Officers, Kisoro District Farmers and
Beekeepers Associations and Sitwe Mound (under community
bye-law management). Visit Birunga Dairy. Interviews with
Africare staff. Survey agricultural stockists (2) October
15-17 Goma Congo Field tour of Kibumba (2 NGOs and farmer associations).
Conduct Senior Stakeholder Consultation. Visit Institut
Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN-Virunga
National Park headquarters, FAO offices and DIOBASS
(NGO), Compagnie Africaine d‘Aviation (CAA). Surveyor‘s
offices. Visit Virunga Market in Goma. Survey agricultural
stockists (2). Unable to reach Rutshuru due to security
concerns. October
18-20 Ruhengeri Rwanda Field tour of Bishwati farmers‘ association and watershed.
Visit ISAR Station and conduct stakeholder meeting, Volcano
National Park headquarters and Sina Gerard agro-processing.
Survey agricultural stockists (3) October
21-24 Kigali Rwanda Visit the Bureau of Statistics, World Bank Rural Sector Support
Project, National Seed Service, Export Promotion Office and
Rubirizi dairy processing. October
23 Butare Rwanda Visit ISAR Headquarters and Rwanda National University GIS
centre. Conduct Senior Stakeholder Consultation October
25-30 Kampala Uganda Collect final secondary information and data bases, conduct
spatial analysis, synthesize findings and prepare final report.
3.4 Evaluating and refining the research hypotheses.
The Validation Team was asked to examine six hypotheses as entry points for cutting-edge
agricultural research (Section 2.3) and revise and expand these hypotheses as necessary. The
outcomes from that effort appear later within this report (Section 8). The process through
which these hypotheses were evaluated and the questions used to test their relevance follows:
22
Figure 2. Site visits within the Lake Kivu PLS by the Validation Team. Members of
the team visited 17 locations over 14 days but were unable to reach Rutshuru, DR
Congo because of security concerns. The team also spent 12 days in Kampala,
Uganda preparing for and synthesizing the validation mission.
1. Restatement. Is the global hypothesis too general, jargonistic or tautological to direct
research activities and if so how may it best be restated and better labelled?
2. Distillation. Can the hypotheses be distilled into a series of simple questions that assist
in its acceptance or rejection through surveys and field experiments?
3. Specification. What are some useful working hypotheses based upon conditions within
the Kivu PLS that can guide impact-oriented research activities?
4. Simplification. Can the global and working hypotheses be captured within simple
research questions and which are the most important questions to be raised?
The process of re-examining the Lake Kivu PLS hypotheses started at the very onset of
Validation Team activities and continued throughout its duration. After several rounds of
examination, the initial hypotheses were restated and related working hypotheses and
research questions, appearing later in this report, were developed.
The process of distillation sought to break the hypothesis into basic component questions. To a
large extent, this exercise was intended to assure that all team members had a similar
interpretation of each of the six initial hypotheses. The questions distilled were also useful
during the informal interviews conducted during the team‘s field visits. The distillation of all
six hypotheses is not included within this report but we offer the following example for the
first hypothesis that states ―Stronger farmer associations have increased bargaining power
23
and the ability to collectively purchase key farm inputs and market produce and thus increase
members’ returns to investment, land and labour.‖
1. Do you belong to or work with a farmer association?
2. If yes, what is its name, origin, membership & services?
3. Has participation in the farmer association …
… increased its members‘ bargaining power?
… resulted in collective marketing?
… improved the economic wellbeing of its members?
If the answer to all of the questions was yes, then one could accept the hypothesis in principle
and undertake its refinement. Indeed, this was the case because from the onset of the field
visit we discovered farmer groups that were collectively purchasing inputs at bulk discounts,
marketing products through forward contracts at a premium price and were committed to
seeing their association expand its membership and the services offered to them. We
conclude that this is a useful hypothesis.
The next hypothesis that was considered states “Investments to sustain and maintain the
natural resource base are more sustainable when they are linked to market-oriented
production or when there are financial incentives for conserving natural resources and
biodiversity.‖ From its onset this hypothesis appears tautological (sustain … sustainable) but
moreover the linkage between market orientation and conservation is not clear. Nor is it clear
if the investments refer to those in research or business. If we assume the former, then an
approach to better understanding this hypothesis may be developed through a series of
questions …
1. Are agricultural and natural resources being better conserved through research?
2. Has resource conservation led to new of greater market opportunities?
3. Can financial incentives improve resource conservation?
Most key informants generally found it difficult to understand this hypothesis and to answer
these questions. Eventually this hypothesis was split into two, one that addresses benefits
from market oriented production through research in enterprise development and another that
examines financial incentives to protect natural resources and foster biodiversity, that are
presented later in this report. Without going into further detail, this process was conducted
for each of the remaining four initial hypotheses.
24
4. The Setting
4.1 Location, population and infrastructure
The Lake Ki vu Pilot Learning Site (PLS) is located in the central part of Africa to the west of the Albertian Rift Valley and strides across three countries, Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC), Rwanda and Uganda. The area lies between longitudes 29o
15‘and 30o
53‘ E latitudes
0o
20‘ and 2o
08‘ S. The area is bounded by Lake Edward to the north and Lake Kivu to the
south-west. The area covers Bushenyi, Kabale, Kanungu, Kisoro, and parts of Ntungamo and
Rukungiri Districts in Uganda, and all or parts of the Rwandan Provinces of Byumba,
Gisenyi, Gitarama, Kibuye, Kigali and Ruhengeri but not the area surrounding Kigali City. In
the Democratic Republic of Congo, the site falls within south-eastern North Kivu Province
including Goma and Rutshuru but not Masisi or the western shore of Lake Kivu. Figure 3
presents the roads and towns within the Pilot Learning Site (left) and its administrative
boundaries (right).
Population estimates within the Pilot Learning Site are not up to date but likely to range
between 10 and 12 million. Uganda and Rwanda provide the most recent population
information of 2,315,244 and over 4 million, respectively, based upon censuses conducted in
2001. The data from North Kivu are based upon considerably older estimates from 1994.
The population in North Kivu falling within the Pilot Learning Site was 3,290,035. If a
population growth rate of 2.5% per year is assumed, then a current estimated population
within the Pilot Learning Site is about 11,856,000 but this approach does not account for
losses and migration during the recent turbulent past. Rwanda‘s population density is
greatest with about 500 persons km-2
. In the DR Congo and Uganda, the population density is
between 250 and 300 persons km-2
. Throughout the area, greater than two-thirds of the
population lives below the poverty line and over 90% live on smallholder agriculture and
livestock with under 0.6 ha of land per family.
The road network in the three bordering countries is varied and is largely dictated by their
Figure 3. The Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site showing road networks and major towns
(left) and its administrative boundaries (right).
25
mountainous terrain. Most of the Pilot Learning Site in Uganda is covered by gravelled roads
to allow easy movement of vehicles. This contrasts with the situation in Rwanda where
Figure 4. Mean monthly values for rainfall and maximum and minimum air temperatures in
Kabale for the 50 year period between 1950 and 2000 (Kabale Meteorology Department,
2001).
despite the hilly and mountainous terrain, most of the roads are tarmac. The Democratic
Republic of Congo has damaged tarmac roads covering only a few kilometres in Goma Town.
The rest of the area is covered by few earth roads that were destroyed in places by the recent
volcanic eruption of Mount Nyiragongo. The other forms of transport in the region are by air
through the airports in Kigali and Goma or by sea through Lake Kivu that connects DRC and
Rwanda. The reliability and amounts of electric power within in the region differs with
Uganda and Rwanda having better power supply than the DR Congo.
4.2 Climate, geology and soils
The Pilot Learning Site has bimodal rainfall providing opportunity for two cropping seasons
during the year. The ―long rains‖ occur from mid-February through early June while the
―short rains‖ occur from mid-September to mid-December. The average annual rainfall in the
entire region varies between 800 mm to 2000 mm. Figure 4 presents the average monthly
precipitation and temperatures throughout the year in Kabale, Uganda, one of the relatively
drier areas within the Pilot Learning Site (see Figure 5). The relative humidity ranges
between 90 – 100% in the mornings and decreases to between 42 and 75% in the afternoons.
The Great Lakes Region in which the Pilot Learning Site is located comprises the
mountainous ‗interlacustrine‘ areas that include Rwanda, Burundi, the Kivu region of Congo,
and south-western Uganda. The terrain is dominated by hills and valleys with most slopes
ranging between 12 to 50% but some as great as 80%. The intersection of the three countries
is located on the famous Virunga chain of volcanic mountains consisting of eight major
volcanoes. Most of them are dormant except the two southernmost ones, Mount Nyiragongo
26
(3462 m) and Mount Nyamuragira (3063 m). These volcanoes have erupted on several
occasions during the 1970s through the 1990s and most recently in 2002 and 2003. The
Virunga Mountains are home of the critically endangered Mountain Gorilla, listed on the
IUCN list of Endangered Species due to habitat loss, poaching, human disease, and war. The
Karisoke Research Centre, founded by Diane Fossey to observe gorillas in their native
habitat, is located between Mount Karisimbi and Mount Visoke.
Most soils occurring in the pilot learning site are volcanic Andosols except in some parts in
Uganda north of Kisoro and south and east of Ruhengeri where deeply weathered, lateritic
Ferralsols occur. Andosols have little or no structure and are very susceptible to erosion.
Other than their potential high phosphorous sorption capacities, these Andosols are relatively
fertile and support intensified farming in absence of fertiliser inputs. The Ferralsols are
considerably lower in potassium (Table 2) and other cation bases. Both of these soils require
different and specialized management both in terms of their physical properties and mineral
nutrient and there is widespread evidence of soil degradation throughout the area, especially
on the steepest cultivated slopes.
Table 2. Status of phosphorus and potassium deficiencies in soils of south-western Uganda
(Siriri, unpublished data).
Description Level (mg kg-1
) % of Ferralsol
sites
% of Andosol
sites
Phosphorus status
Deficient 0-3 25 41
Moderate 4-10 46 39
High >10 29 20
Potassium status
Deficient 0-0.18 61 30
Moderate 0.19-0.4 24 10
High >0.4 15 60
4.3 Vegetation and Land Use
The original natural vegetation of the Pilot Learning Site was largely montane forest with the
closed canopies at lower elevations thinning on higher slopes. To the west of the site is
Congolean Humid Forest, and to the east is Sudanese Savannah. Almost all of the non-
protected natural vegetation within the site was cleared for agriculture. The only clear
illustration of part of the native vegetation is found in Echuya Forest Reserve and Bwindi
National Park. Relics of forest/savanna and a mosaic of patches of savannah and scrub at
various stages of the succession back to forest can be found at altitudes between 2200 and
3200 MASL where the influence of fire and cultivation has been reduced.
Current land use within the PLS can be placed into three broad categories namely:
agricultural land, national parks and forest reserves. The agricultural land in is characterized
by the cultivation of banana, potato, beans, maize and several other lesser grown food crops.
Coffee and tea are occasionally grown within the site, particularly in Rwanda and Uganda.
Emerging lucrative markets for vegetables such as cabbage, aubergines, leeks, onions, and
carrots are resulting in further farm diversification, especially in the valley bottoms. Valley
bottoms are used for dairy farming but many continue to support natural wetlands, which are
now protected in Uganda but routinely drained in Rwanda. Orchards are few but some
apples, avocadoes, mangoes and passion fruits are being cultivated. One feature throughout
27
the site is the spread of eucalyptus and, to a lesser extent, wattle (Acacia mernzii). These
trees have escaped from former tree plantations and form the majority of woody biomass
observed in the non-protected areas.
Land tenure throughout the site is customary, meaning that families inherit untitled (non-
deeded) land that may be bought or sold. Many of the cultivated hillsides are covered by
simple earth terraces constructed about 50 years ago to reduce soil erosion and run-off; the
assumption was that hillsides with an inclination exceeding 15° would not be cultivated and
that land would be fallowed (Martins, 1945). However, due to increasing population
pressure, many slopes exceeding 30° are now cultivated, using inappropriate tillage methods,
and little or no fallowing is practiced. Thus farming is increasingly being constrained by
continuous land degradation resulting from soil erosion and nutrient depletion, and many
fields are being abandoned (field interviews). Land fragmentation further complicates
implementation of soil conservation and water management practices. Relatively little land is
committed to tree plantations. For example, Cypressus lustanica, Pinus patula, and
Eucalyptus are cultivated on only 3982 ha in Kabale District, Uganda. One exception is the
expanding quinine industry in Eastern Congo where Cinchona spp. is grown for five to seven
years on c. 5000 ha for its bark that is processed into anti-malarial medicines and poles used
for building material.
4.4 Policy and Institutional Setting.
Decentralization in Uganda is one of the most ambitious reforms of local governance in
Africa. The decentralization process was initiated in 1986 and culminated in the 1995
Constitution and the 1997 Local Government Act which provides the legal framework for the
participation of local communities in policy-making. Uganda‘s decentralisation policy has
vested most of the administrative, service provision and policy management to the districts. Districts
are divided into counties, then sub-counties, parishes and villages/cells. The Plan for Modernisation
of Agriculture (PMA) provides the overall policy framework for guiding agricultural and
rural development in Uganda. It also specifies government structures, institutions and
mechanisms for its implementation. These include the National Agricultural Advisory
Services (NAADS), the new National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), the National
Environmental Management Authority, the National Forestry Authority, the Uganda Wildlife
Authority and many other decentralized structures for implementing area-based plan for
modernization of agriculture. The National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) has
also undergone institutional changes, including decentralization of agricultural research
through outreach agricultural research and development centres to cover different
agroecological zones in the country. NARO is now evolving to form a national agricultural
research system that should include both public and private research institutes, agricultural
universities, civil society, farmers organizations and the private sector.
Rwanda has made remarkable progress on the economic, policy and social fronts since the
genocide of 1994. Following the Uganda example, Rwanda‘s National Decentralization
Policy emphasizes the empowerment of local populations to fight poverty by participating in
planning and management of their development process. Rwanda‘s Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper (PRSP) priotitizes agriculture as a critical area for growth. The Agricultural
Policy Outline developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Forestry
(MINAGRI) calls for a radical change of approach to transform and modernize Rwanda
through the development of a modern agriculture that is better adapted to markets, promotes
high enterprise profitability, and reinforces agricultural research and advisory services. The
government has developed an agricultural strategy with the objectives of increasing rural
28
incomes, enhancing food security, and converting agriculture into a viable sector by moving
it away from a subsistence- to a market-based activity.
The main elements of the strategy are to (i) promote market-based agriculture by developing
markets for both inputs and products; (ii) improve soil conservation and management; (iii)
extend available land by developing swamplands in an environmentally sustainable
framework; (iv) promote the livestock and fisheries subsectors; (v) improve farming methods
through research, extension and information services, and intensification of the use of inputs;
(vi) promote rural credit and other financial mechanisms for rural-based activities; (vii)
promote the formation of farmers' groups and professional associations; and (viii) improve
storage and farm-to-market roads. Recent government policies such as Trade Integration
Programme and Vision 2020 provide policy frameworks that will support IAR4D initiatives.
To respond to these challenges, the Rwanda national agricultural research institute has also
embarked in an ambitious plan for decentralization and strengthening of technology to enable
researchers to be in close contact with rural communities and other partners of rural development.
Of the three countries, the DRC has experienced a long period of major political and
economic instability. As a consequence, policies and institutions are in a permanent state of
crisis and no institutional reforms of any significance have taken place for the past 20 years.
DRC is still facing enormous ―emerging from conflicts syndrome‖ and challenges for
recovery and reconstruction. The continuing civil war and external forces have resulted in a
bifurcation of the system, particularly in the area covered by the PLS. However, with the
progress in the peace and reunification process, there are prospects for recovery. Despite this
picture, there are a number of institutions and structures that are actively working on
agricultural research and development in eastern DRC. These include the national
agricultural research institute (INERA) which has been collaborating with ASARECA
Networks, CGIAR centres and advanced research institutes over the last decade. There are
also agricultural universities, UN agencies international organizations, civil society
organizations and farmers‘ organizations, which are still working in an emergency and relief
frameworks, with some of them moving towards sustainable development.
29
5. Research and Development Challenges
5.1 Producing more food at reduced cost.
Food crops. The small-scale farmers within the Lake Kivu PLS cultivate various
combinations of potatoes, beans, banana and maize as their main food crops. Potatoes are
usually grown as a monocrop but sometimes intercropped with maize. Both climbing and
bush beans are cultivated with the former usually grown as a monocrop and the latter
intercropped with banana or maize. One feature of food production within the area is
complex polyculture where several food crops such as potatoes, beans, maize and sorghum
are grown together, often on over-
planted raised beds or in relay
(sequential planting). Clearly, this
arrangement is designed to reduce risks
as failure of one or more crops will be
compensated by the others and is
essential a form of risk-adverse crop
diversification. This strategy is weak in
that it makes poor use of available seeds,
results in excess intercrop competition
and exacerbates nutrient limitations,
particularly N (Photograph 1).
Other important food crops that are
less often grown include sweet potatoes,
peas, coco yams and pumpkins, usually
as intercrops. One exception to this is
the extensive valley bottom cultivation
of sweet potatoes on well drained raised
beds in Rwanda. Several vegetable
crops are also cultivated for market,
usually as monocrops in smaller fields
near homesteads including cabbage,
onions, carrots and tomatoes. The most
Photograph 1. Relay intercropping of maize,
sorghum, potatoes and beans on raised beds
near Ruhengeri, Rwanda. Note the chlorotic
maize and sorghum.
important crop in Kabale and Kisoro, Uganda is potato, climbing beans appear predominant
in Rwanda and Congo‘s farmers are the most diversified. Cassava is said to be important in
the northern, lower elevation part of the pilot learning site but the team was unable to visit
this area.
Much of the differences in cropping combinations that occur within the pilot learning site are accounted for by the availability of moisture (Figure 5). The annual precipitation varies
between 800 and 2000 mm yr-1
. The drier areas occur to the east of the PLS and in the Western Rift Valley located to the south of Lake Edward. These drier areas are nearly semi-
arid and the natural vegetation is savannahs and dry woodlands. The farms in Byumba,
Rwanda and Kabale, Uganda, and lands to their east suffer periodic drought. A similar, but
less droughty area also occurs around Katanda, DR Congo, but much of this land falls within
the Volcano National Park. These areas produce sorghum, maize and potatoes, but bush
rather than climbing beans are generally cultivated and bananas are grown in the valley
bottoms rather than hillsides. The humid areas, with well distributed rainfall of nearly 2000
mm per year, occur around the Virunga Mountains and in northwestern Rwanda. Farmers in
this area are able to grow banana on hillsides, prefer climbing beans to bush varieties and
30
Lake
Edward
PLS boundary
DR Congo Uganda
Rwanda
Lake
Kivu
must either grow moisture loving crops, such as cocoyam, or take special precautions to drain
the valley bottoms for the
production of sweet potatoes,
climbing beans and
vegerables. Ironically,
households in the humid zone
occasionally suffer from
water shortages when deep,
young soils of volcanic
moisture rapidly absorb
rainfall and year-round water
bodies are rare.
Several crop disorders
were noted during field visits.
Banana wilt has reached near
epidemic proportions. Late
blight of potatoes is common.
Nitrogen and phosphorus
deficiencies are frequent but
not widespread in south-
western Uganda or near
Goma because of the high
Lake
Edward
DR Congo
Lake
Kivu
PLS boundary
Uganda
Rwanda
inherent fertility of these
volcanic soils (Andosols).
Nutrient deficiency
Figure 5. Annual precipitation within the Lake Kivu
PLS ranges from 839 to 1937 mm per year.
symptoms were sometimes expressed on maize and beans growing near healthy potatoes.
Large differences in the sophistication of seed systems were noted between countries with
Kabale, Uganda having the strongest and Goma, Congo the weakest. In Uganda, bags of
improved potato seed (small tubers of cv. Victoria Red) were widely available to farmers
while in Congo farmers rely upon self propagation of cv. Cruiser for its disease resistance.
Victoria is by far the preferred variety by most consumers. Seed of hybrid maize and
improved bean are available through retailers in Uganda but not Congo and Rwanda although
it is likely that most farmers in all three countries continue to rely upon local land races. The
availability and prices of fertilizers and seeds of field crops within the Pilot Learning Site are
described in greater detail within the Farm Input Supply case study (Section 6.2).
The constraints to food crop production are described in Figure 6. The limited reliance
upon purchased farm inputs results in part from a paucity of farm input retailers (1) but more
so from the weak demand for those products by small-scale farmers due to their limited
capacity to invest in farm improvement. Cultivation in absence of inputs results in low and
declining crop yields due to soil fertility depletion (2), uncontrolled pests and diseases and
reduced yield potential (3). Low yields result in household food deficits (4), little or no crop
surpluses (5), alienation from the marketplace (6) and an inability (or unwillingness) to check
land degradation (7). The resulting low household incomes further reduce the farmer‘s
capacity for investment and perpetuate the cycle of poverty (8). Because of the complex
causes of poor crop yields among these small-scale farmers, and their far-reaching effects, no
simple intervention is likely to overcome yield limitations and uplift households from
poverty, rather an integrated approach involving farm inputs, land conservation technologies
and improved access to markets is required.
31
limited availability 1 of farm inputs
limited use
of farm inputs
reduced capacity
for investment
reduced soil fertility
uncontrolled pest & disease
2 3
unimproved crop varieties
declining crop yields
7 4
low household incomes
5 6
degrading
lands food
insecurity few marketable
products
8
perpetuated 8 poverty
Figure 6. A problem tree describing the causes and consequences of low and declining
crop yields among small-scale farmers within the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Center.
Intensifying livestock production. Livestock development offers various opportunities for
improving food security and especially to increase the availability of high quality protein in
the Lake Kivu region because of the multiple marketable products. This can best be achieved
through the integration of livestock in the crop production systems. There are profitable trade
opportunities in livestock products in the region.
Several community initiatives and technological interventions have been introduced in
Kabale district but have not adequately addressed the problem of soil conservation.
Stakeholders suggested that that a market-driven approach may be more successful than any
of the previously used methods. The logic was that use of high value perennial crops or
rearing of livestock that required establishment of pastures on the hillsides would reduce
tillage and hence allow soils to recover. Livestock manure could be efficiently utilised in soil
fertility management. Birunga Dairy Industries established in Kisoro town during 2004 has
the capacity for packing 5000 litres of pasteurized milk and 4000lts of yoghurt per day. The
owner is in the process of installing a UHT production unit that will have flow capacity of
4000 litres per hour. Already, the processor buys milk at 350 shillings per litre from Kisoro
but but also from Kabale, Ntungamo and Rubaare. He sells the pasteurized milk in Kisoro,
Kabale, Rwanda and DR Congo,
32
In Eastern DR Congo the
community bordering the forest
reserve in Kibumba, North Kivu
consists of traditional livestock
keepers. During the recent civil war,
refuges and fighting soldiers
depopulated the area of all livestock.
The communities have not taken up
new livelihood activities apart from the
growing of annual crops on a small
scale. Nature conservation
organisations are giving them goats
mostly to reduce encroachment on the
neighbouring forest game reserve. It is
Photograph 2. Cattle graze on undeveloped pasture
near intensively cultivated area in Kabale, Uganda.
important to ensure availability of the right species and breeds for the restocking exercise and
to incorporate appropriate forages for improved feeding regimes. For example the growing of
fodder crops such as Calliandra spp, improved Penesetum spp, giant Setaria along terrace
bunds would help control soil erosion and at the same time feed livestock. Livestock keeping
in Rwanda is performed mostly by pastoralists operating outside of the Pilot Learning Site
although zero grazing is becoming more popular. In Ruhengeri zero-grazing, under a Heifer
Project International initiative, is integrated with crop production.
There are real opportunities for profitable livestock production in the Pilot Learning Site
but the challenge remains how to ensure profitable production on the limited natural
resource base. This raises many questions. How can animal scientists best develop
appropriate breeds for high productivity? How can land managers effectively utilize small
holdings for developing quality feed? How can improved post-harvest handling of livestock
products allow better market access? These issues require multi-stakeholder research to
develop strategies for increasing yields and profits from raising livestock. Answers to these
questions are useful in verifying the Partnership Synergy Hypothesis described in Section 8.5
of this report.
5.2 Diversifying Agro-enterprise for wealth creation among the poor
Rural agro-enterprise development has been identified as the critical entry point of the Lake
Kivu Pilot Learning Site yet throughout this area entrepreneurship and enterprise spirit appear
very weak. The site is characterized by large numbers of highly vulnerable rural poor for
whom agriculture represents the major opportunity to enhance their livelihoods. The
majority of farmers live in marginal areas with poor market access, poor infrastructure,
remoteness to major cities and markets, small fragmented and degraded farmlands, deficient
institutions, organizations and policies, and often with limited support form research and
development organizations. Their small landholdings limit their capacity to produce large
volumes of staple crops which have large domestic markets such as maize, and cassava.
Many households still do not produce enough for food security and income generation. This
situation is exacerbated by limited entrepreneurial skills for adding value to staple
commodities, and especially production and marketing of high value products.
33
Table 3: Strategies for diversifying agro-enterprises in Kivu Pilot Learning Site.
Existing Markets New Markets
Existing
Products
Market Penetration
Examples: potatoes, beans,
banana, vegetables, maize, and
sorghum
Product development
Examples: honey, passion fruit,
wheat, dairy products, soybean
grain, passion fruits, chilli, apple
banana
New
Products
Market development &
expansion
Examples: zero grazing, fish
farming, soybean products, dairy
products
Diversification into higher value
crops
Examples: temperate Fruits,
garlic, French beans, chilli,
ginger, cosmetics, medicinals and
handicrafts
New livelihood opportunities need to be created for the rural poor in the PLS by
introducing technologies and new market linkages that increase their competitiveness and
capacity to generate income, as well as their food security needs. Developing a diversity of
agro-enterprises can offer small farmers greater risk aversion and more market opportunities
at local, national and regional levels. Some development organizations are specializing in
this area of linking farmers to markets and agro-enterprise development. In some limited
number of cases, they are achieving some impacts locally with significant numbers of the
poor. But they are usually poorly connected to or supported by the formal research sector,
private sector and government policies. The challenge for R4D organizations is how to link
small-scale farmers in marginal areas to growth markets, and how to develop methods and
approaches that effectively integrate research, market access and development of
community agro-enterprise.
The Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site has strong potential for a number of products.
However, this requires intensifying the production of traditional staples and diversifying into
newer, high value products that have growing domestic, urban and international specialized
niche markets. This type of markets is growing rapidly, but to be able to seize such
opportunities, producers need access to knowledge and technologies that can handle the
production, processing and marketing requirements. The analysis of suggested enterprise
opportunities in the PLS points to some possible entry points for enterprise development
within the PLS. We used the Ansoff’s product-market matrix to characterize the different
enterprise opportunities (Table 3).
The rural households in the Lake Kivu PLS are undergoing the difficult transition from
subsistence farming to mixed-enterprise agriculture because their needs and aspirations have
extended beyond what may be produced on their farms alone. This change is impeded by the
area‘s remote location, its lack of agro-processing opportunities and the poor selection of
crops intended for upper-end, demand-driven markets. Identifying these new crops,
integrating them into mixed cropping systems and escorting them to markets are key entry
points for research. Such new crops should be high value and rapidly processed or non-
perishable. Their propagules must be easily multiplied and inexpensive. They must not
complete excessively or displace other important farm enterprises. Additional advantages
include the generation of multiple products, compatibility with land conservation measures
and livestock enterprises and, in buffer zones, non-palatability to wildlife. These crops must
not be susceptible to pests and disease and most farmers lack the ability to control them with
pesticides. There must be competitive advantage for these crops within the highlands or else
less remote midland areas will produce these crops as well. Several such crops were
34
mentioned but none conclusively identified including macadamia nut, apples, artemisia,
cinchona, tea, peas and mustard but by no means should this list be considered exclusive.
The traits of these crops are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Some possible cash crops for the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site and their likely
advantages and disadvantages1.
Crop High Non- Rapidly Multiple Pest Deter
value perishable propagated products resistant wildlife
Potatoes ± ± 9 9 8 8
Beans ± 9 9 9 8 8
Peas ± 9 9 9 8 8
Tea 9 ± 8 8 9 9
Macadamia 9 9 ± 8 9 ?
Apple 9 8 8 8 8 ± Artemisia ? 9 ? 8 ? ? Cinchona ± 9 ? 9 9 9
Mustard ? 9 9 8 ? ?
Key: 8 crop fails to meet criteria, ± crop partially satisfies criteria and requires improvement
or investigation, 9 crop satisfies criteria, ? crop characteristics not sufficiently understood..
5.3. Improving markets
Domestic markets. The existing markets for the major commodities of the Lake Kivu PLS
are fraught with many imperfections (Ferris et al, 2002a; Jagwe et al, 2003). As in traditional
African marketing systems, most of the traders purchased their products directly from the
producers. Purchase prices are often based on current market prices or determined through
haggling or bargaining in the absence of adequate market information. Key market
participants are itinerant village collectors, stationary market brokers, long distance traders
and agro-processors. The marketing structure for grains (beans; maize; sorghum) and banana
is described in Figure 7. Long distance traders (generally brokers) pay in cash and often have
storage facilities and other quality enhancing equipment. Itinerant traders and retailers appear
to benefit most. For example, based on gross margin analysis (the difference between
purchase and selling price) travelling traders and urban retailers add about 39% and 27%
respectively to the price of cassava flour in Uganda (Collinson et al, 2003).
The goods are often sold to brokers at very low prices because of the strong collusive
practices of the brokers. Local traders operate during the market days and will negotiate with
long distance traders on behalf of the farmers. According to DIOBAS – a development NGO
in Goma (DRC), grains bought from DRC by traders from Rwanda and Uganda are
eventually resold in DRC markets often at high prices. This is a simplified illustration of a
35
Village trader (at the
local market)
Assembler/
Wholesaler
Regional
markets
Miller &
Processor
Long
distance
trader
Farmers
Cooperative associations
Farmers
Farmers
Cooperative associations
Village trader (at the
local market)
Long
distance
trader
Miller &
Processor
Farmers
Assembler/
Wholesaler
Regional
markets
Figure 7. Market structure for grains and grain products in the Lake Kivu PLS.
more developed system with many participants. However, the figure suffices to show that the
potential advantages of organized marketing for commodities for smallholders can be
expected to be gained in the linkage between the farmer and the long distance traders, agro-
processors and regional markets, i.e. by by-passing the itinerant village collectors. The
challenge is to make the marketplace more transparent and organize farmers into
marketing cooperatives with requisite skills in collective bargaining.
Export markets. Table 5 describes the economic performance of the three host countries
based on a set of economic and trade indicators. It shows that while growth was achieved in
the Central Africa in 2003 relative to the previous four years, the performance in East Africa
remained at the same level. Export performance in terms of real growth was uneven between
the three countries: Uganda recorded a negative growth rate while DRC and Rwanda
registered moderate improvements. As shown by the per capita export data, the three
economies registered poor performance when compared with the regional averages in East
and Central Africa. There is thus some scope for improving on the countries‘ performance.
Table 5: Gross Domestic Product and Export Performance, 1999 - 2003
Real GDP
Growth Rate (%)
GDP Per Capita
(US$)
Real Exports
Growth (%)
Exports Per
Capita (US$)
Country Average
1999-
2002
2003a
Average
1999-
2002 2003a
Average
1999-
2002
2003a
Average
1999-
2002
2003a
Uganda 6.3 5.4 244 228 17.5 -1.1 29 32
DR Congo -2.4 5.0 102 115 -3.2 6.8 20 23
Rwanda 7.2 3.2 224 209 8.2 3.3 18 17
C. Africa 2.1 4.4 287 355 -2.0 4.6 112 128
E. Africa 4.0 2.6 242 263 5.7 5.7 58 62
Notes a
Preliminary estimates, b
Exports of goods and non-factor services at market prices, c
real exports of goods growth. Source: Africa Development Report (2004).
36
The Lake Kivu PLS host countries have historically been exporters of primary products
(such as coffee and tea) and a few studies confirm their comparative advantage in the
production of these crops (Oyejide, 1993; Amjadi et al, 1996;ADB, 2004 ). Potentials exist
for industrial utilization and exports of non traditional agricultural enterprises such as fruits
and vegetables within the region, but domestic producers and processors also face
competition from imports produced in Kenya, South Africa, and outside the continent (Ferris
et al, 2002b; Mbwika, 2003). Indications for possible improvements were obtained during the
field visits. For instance, the Ugandan Cooperative Alliance (UCA) has been successful in
forming farmer groups and improving their access to technical assistance, credit, improved
inputs, and market-price information. The Alliance has introduced new value added products
including solar dried fruits, fruit juice, banana flour, banana wine, aloe vera syrup, processed
maize and milk products including fruit-flavoured yoghurt. It has also forged strong
partnerships with agricultural research institutions to transfer technologies to improve
productivity and income. However, the need for enhancing quality standards (including
packaging, labelling) of processed products was still apparent. The major bottleneck in
promoting exports through value-adding activities is the lack of appropriate processing
equipment to produce high quality, competitive products. Improving quality standards will
reduce risk in the agro-food trade.
Sina Gerard, a passion fruit exporter in Nyirangarama, Rwanda, reported that his weekly
exports of passion fruit to Belgium had declined from 3 tons to 0.5 ton due to insufficient
supplies occasioned by viral infection of passion fruit. The fruit processing plant established
in 1998 cannot satisfy his growing export contracts for the same reason. The potential
benefits he sees in the crop is reflected in promotional activities involving the distribution of
free seeds to 3000 farmers in Gisenyi, Gikongoro and Byumba Districts which are yet to be
affected by the virus. The company also employed agronomists to conduct trials and provide
advisory services to the farmers. The major challenge for agroprocessors is the assurance
of adequate and consistent supplies of high quality raw materials.
5.4 Sustaining agricultural and natural resources
Soils. Farmers in the PLS grow annual food crops on hillsides using traditional practices.
Annual crops offer little protection to the erodable soils which become more exposed to the
elements that cause erosion during the frequent tillage operations. Up to 1t ha-1
soil loss in
erosion has been measured on a runoff plot in a single rain storm on a hill slope in Kabale
(Bagoora, 1990). Nutrient removal in crop harvests, with limited replenishment from
external inputs, also contributes to nutrient depletion. Annual nutrient output rates in
harvests from cropping systems in Rubaya, Kabale, were found to be as high as 72.3, 7.7 and
49.4 kg ha-1
for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, respectively (Bekunda and Manzi,
2003). Almost all stakeholders the VT interacted with identified soil degradation as the most
prevalent constraint to productivity. For their continued survival, they must reduce soil
degradation.
Soil fertility management research and outreach programs have been conducted in the
ASARECA countries by several institutions; that of the African Highlands Initiative being
more relevant to the Lake Kivu PLS. Similarly, agroforestry programs have had some impact
in introducing technologies for erosion control, nitrogen replenishment, biofuels and even
stakes for climbing beans. It is considered, however, that these programs promoted more of
technological innovations which are only a component of INRM. During discussions with
stakeholders, it was clear that the socio-economic environment (e.g. enhanced marketing
pathways), land tenure systems (e.g. land fragmentation) and community specific
37
characteristics (e.g. ability to conform to bylaws) play roles in farmer decisions to adopt soil
management innovations. The challenge is to develop hillside farming enterprises that
offer both food security and economic incentives to the farmers and consequently lead to
the appreciation and adoption of conservation measures as a means of protecting the
enterprises.
Wetlands. Wetlands are transitional zones between upland ecologies, including farmlands,
and deepwater systems such as rivers and lakes. They receive and transform biological and
chemical inputs from the general landscape ecology and because of their transitional position;
they can be among the most productive systems. Human activities can alter the roles of the
wetlands. Because of the high population densities, most wetlands, river banks and lake
shores in the PLS were cleared of their natural vegetation and converted to crop and pasture
land. They no longer serve as erosion deposits and as a consequence, rivers carry muddy
waters, silting is evident and water levels in rivers are low indicating excessive drainage. In
some cases, patches of cleared swamp have been acidified and are devoid of vegetation.
Clearly, wetland biodiversity has been disrupted.
Policies of the countries hosting the PLS recognize the importance of conserving the
ecological integrity of the wetlands but in the face of serious demographic pressure. In
Uganda, the policy seeks to reverse the historic wetland losses in the face of continuing
drainage and encroachment by agricultural enterprises. In Rwanda, management of
marshlands has taken the approach of community participation at all levels of decision
making. Rice growing is being integrated with fish farming as a means of diversifying
resource outputs, following impact studies on water resources, environment and human
health. Farmers construct fish ponds which are also used as sources of water for rice
irrigation. Aquaculture compost is being used to partly replace mineral fertiliser
requirements for the rice crop. Fish farming in the PLS may be feasible only in the wetland
areas as construction of ponds in highly porous andosols on steep slopes with no water
sources is not a feasible option. The challenge is to allow exploitation of the wetland and
water system resources based on sufficient information and management technologies that
will allow their rehabilitation and rational utilization.
Forests and trees. Most forests in the Lake Kivu PLS are natural and are found in the
protected areas. Deforestation decreased forested areas by as much as 70% during the period
between 1950s and late 1990s. Recent deforestation created areas for refugee re-settlements
and agricultural utilization. For the most part, countries of the Lake Kivu PLS are enforcing
the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, thereby
limiting utilization of forests in protected areas. The area planted to managed forests is
equally limited. In the Kabale and Kanungu districts of Uganda, plantation forestry made of
the eucalypt and cypress trees covers approximately 4000 ha of National Forestry Authority
(NFA) land. The plantations belong to both the NFA as well as private entrepreneurs to
whom NFA leased part of its land. In isolated cases, such as Gisenyi, Mutura District of
Rwanda, local authorities have introduced corrective action and have been planting native
tree species at the top of cultivated mountains.
Most farmers grow trees on-farm. In Rwanda, the eucalypt is the tree most commonly
grown; it grows fast and has comparatively better qualities for on-farm use, including timber
for structural construction, firewood, fence poles, stakes for climbing beans and the tree
produces nectar and pollen that is collected by bees and which benefit beekeepers. As much
as possible, the eucalypt is grown on land that is not suitable for crop production, and
occasionally on prime agricultural land as individual trees or in cluster. However, its
allelopathy does not allow maximum utilization of land through intercropping, and it is
38
considered to have the ability to lower the water table. The eucalypt and the black wattle are
grown under similar circumstances in Uganda. The black wattle is preferred for its high
quality charcoal and strength of fibre made out of its bark. Its potential as a source of gum
has not been exploited. The challenge is to identify on-farm niches for the growing of trees
with preferred characteristics while freeing land for those trees with more multiple uses in
crop and livestock production.
Fostering biodiversity. It is estimated that the 34 regions in the world, identified as hotspots
by Conservation International only cover 2.3 percent of the Earth's land surface but they
harbor well over 50 percent of all terrestrial plant and animal diversity. Habitat loss due to the
clearing of tropical forests for agriculture, logging, and the collection of fuel wood continues
to be the major factor in the declining number of primates (Science in Africa, 2005).
The protected areas of the Pilot Learning Site (PLS) have been identified as world
biodiversity hotspots and include the Bwindi National Park (Uganda), Ruwenzori Mountains
National Park (DR Congo), the Kibale National Park (Uganda), the Queen Elizabeth Park
(Uganda), the Nyungwe National Park (Rwanda), Kahuzi Biega National Park (DR Congo)
and the Virunga Volcanoes Park that is shared by the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda. The last
species of the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) are found in the 434 km2
Virunga
Conservation Area and in the Bwindi National Park while the Eastern lowland gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla graueri) is found in the eastern forests of DRC. The wetland area of Queen
Elizabeth is a designated Ramsar site (wetlands of global significance and value) and 550
bird species of which two are globally threatened can be found in the park.
The World Wide Fund (WWF) reports that illegal clearing of the forest for agriculture in
DR Congo and Rwanda in 2004 has decreased the habitat of the mountain gorillas. This
encroachment reduced their breeding area and limited their main food sources. “Recent
meetings between administrative and military authorities from DR Congo and Rwanda have
been very positive and have apparently led to the removal of illegal settlers and a cessation
in forest clearance," says Dr Peter J. Stephenson, Coordinator of WWF's African Great Apes
Programme. Limited access to the park has been given to traditional healers to collect
traditional medicine in Uganda and Rwanda, women in the DRC are allowed to collect dead
branches, vegetables and mushrooms and beekeepers from Rwanda and Uganda are allowed
to keep their beehives in the buffer zones.
Communities around the park have been using various beneficial plant, tree, and fungi
species inside the park for decades but the number of people needing these species have
increased dramatically. People in DR Congo have been collecting mushrooms from the forest
and sell it in the local market in Goma. However, if they could increase their production they
would be able to deliver to the … Sun on the border between Rwanda and DR Congo who
has already indicated that they need a steady flow of mushrooms. Beekeeping projects have
been established in the buffer zones of the parks in Rwanda and Uganda. The existing
beekeeping projects in DR Congo falls out of the PLS but there is scope to increase the
number of beekeeping projects in the buffer zones and outside protected areas. There is an
opportunity to study the domestication of beneficial plant, fungal and insect species that
are useful to people outside the park in order to transform them into commercial
enterprises.
The tourism industry and ecotourism have been contributing to the financial management
of the biodiversity hotspots. Ecotourism is becoming more popular in benign environments.
However, if it must be managed responsibly so that it is not destructive to biodiversity. One
of the biggest tourist attractions to the PLS is the visiting of the gorilla parks, generating
about US$ 20 million annually. It is perceived by people living around the park that they
have not benefited from the income from the park but the park authorities in Volcanoes and
39
Mgahinga National Parks indicated that 5% and 20% of park revenues, respectively, are
returned to the community through community development (water supply, schools, health
clinics) or as targeted employment. The challenge is to maximize revenue from the tourism
industry for park and buffer zone management without compromising the parks’ integrity.
Watershed management. A watershed can be defined as a geographical unit of land draining
from surrounding ridge tops to a common point such as a lake or stream confluence with a
neighboring watershed. It also consists of communities that are interlinked, and with
common socio-economic characteristics. The watershed as a unit of operation in NRM is
convenient for various reasons. Plot or farm level interventions to NRM overlook the fact that
landscapes are interconnected (flows and causal interactions between neighbouring farms and
villages) and involves social interaction (common property resources, institutions governing
natural resources – property rights, by-laws, groups, norms).
Integrated watershed management offer opportunity to use broader units of analysis and
intervention for sustainable natural resource management rooted in the local capital and
making effective use of available research capacity through multi-disciplinary team work.
The landscapes on which small farmers in the PLS operate are interconnected and actions in
one plot often affects neighbouring farmers. Examples include soil and water conservation
practices, use of pesticides, irrigation, livestock grazing, use of fires during land preparation
etc. Patchy conservation of soil involving construction of conservation structures in scattered
plots will be affected by non conserved plots where runoff can destroy established structures.
Some structures like cut-off drains concentrate water that might end up causing more erosion
in a neighbouring plot. The use of pesticides by few farmers might not address the whole
problem of pests as they will move to untreated plots where they will cause serious damage
and resurface later in the treated plot. Adoption of some technologies like the laborious soil
conservation measure requires either collective action by the community or strong incentives
to individuals. It is considered that IAR4D operating at watershed level represents an
important opportunity for addressing issues in innovative ways by expanding the range of
social and environmental benefits from isolated interventions. Table 6 is a summary of
threats to natural and agricultural resources, their impacts and potential research and
development activities to minimise degradation of these resources.
Table 6. Threats to biodiversity and sustainable natural resources in the Pilot Learning Site.
Type of threat Source of threat Effect in Conservation and
conservation target research activities
Reduced biodiversity Conversion of lands
to agriculture
Habitat loss for
protected wildlife
Loss of species of
insects, small animals
and plants
Biodiversity protection
policy Income
generating projects in
buffer zone
Domestication of
useful species
Soil degradation Hillside agriculture Nutrient loss resulting
in reduced crop yield
Land rehabilitation
and conservation
practices
Potential chemical
pollution associated
with intensification
Susceptibility of
higher value crops to
pests and disease
requires increased use
of pesticides
Water sources
polluted with
chemicals, fish and
water plant material
decrease
Biological control of
diseases and organic
production practices
Efficient utilisation of
external inputs
Wetland degradation Agriculture and Loss of biodiversity & Policies on wetland
40
livestock production system carbon,
diminished watershed
capacity and
acidification of soils
integrity, science-
based sustainable use
5.5. Institutional capacity development and organizational change
The SSA-CP is piloting a shift from a research paradigm where technologies are viewed as an
end to one where they are an intermediate in an integrated process for achieving a ―people
oriented impact‖. The new paradigm, Integrated Agricultural Research for Development
(IAR4D) is characterised by the inherent complexity of the issues addressed, cutting across
sectors and scales; the active involvement of a broad range of different stakeholders in
collective innovation systems; the use of systems thinking to integrate different disciplinary
perspectives; the identification of development strategies that integrate technological,
institutional and policy options; and the evaluation of (potential) outcomes of the innovation
and research process by the different stakeholders based on a range of criteria, (Hawkins
2005).
The SSA-CP programme proposal emphasizes the importance of institutional
development to successful implementation of IAR4D and highlights four elements that
influence institutional change are organisational and institutional change, capacity
development, information and knowledge management and monitoring and evaluation.
IAR4D dictates establishment of inter-institutional partnerships based on mutual trust and
ownership of the process and clearly defined roles. Organisations will therefore be compelled
to change outlook and approach in the way they have been doing business in order to allow a
shift from technology focus to a people focus and to permit ‗looped‘ action research mode
that results in societal and institutional learning. Organisational change requires policy
support to stimulate new direction and the SSA-CP programme (FARA, 2004) recommends
policy change as an entry point. For example in Uganda the government has already
approved a new policy that calls increased market orientation and more-stakeholder
involvement among other things MAAIF, 2003). The Uganda National organisation has re-
aligned her research programme to comply with the new policy and offers an example of a
―research and development continuum‖ strategy (NARO, 2004)
There is need for multi-pronged capacity and competence development that will impart
new knowledge, skills and attitudes to individuals to stimulate the formation of multi-
disciplinary research teams. The teams should have the competence to able to integrate the
analysis of national and regional development as well as biophysical and social (hard and soft
systems) issues, and ensure that the solutions obtained are scaled out to improve livelihoods
in a wider area. This will foster continuous institutional transformation. The change should
start with the formation of inter-institutional task forces that will ‗learn together by action and
reflection‘ approach undergoing continuous mentoring until the desired transformation is
achieved.
Capacity building. The whole range of stakeholders who are involved in the implementation
of IAR4D must therefore be part of an interactive capacity development process. Key
stakeholders are, farmers, and their various organisations and fora, National and international
research organisations, public advisory services, private sector (business community and
processors), Non-governmental and community based organisations and universities. The
envisaged roles and capacities of each of the stakeholders have been reviewed and challenges
for capacity development identified. In addition to equipping scientists with skills for
biophysical analysis, teams will be furnished with social soft skills to be able to facilitate and
41
participate in multi-stakeholder processes. It will also ensure that all stakeholders are
empowered enough to negotiate and to participate on equal partnership basis and/or initiate
and lead their own processes. Teams need continuous coaching to ensure the change in
mind-sets that will result in institutionalization of the IAR4D process agricultural research.
Information and knowledge management. IAR4D is a learning process, and requires a
system of information and knowledge management to enhance reflection and feedback for
societal learning and improved decision making. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and a
systemic approach to impact assessment, to track progress towards overall goals, signal the
need for mid-course adjustments, and document the returns on investment in IAR4D. IAR4D
is a multi-stakeholder action learning process that integrates multiple simultaneous activities.
Therefore the evaluation process will not only focus on progress, benefits and impacts of the
research but will pay attention to lessons learnt and the effectiveness of the learning process
in bringing about empowerment and social and institutional change. Biophysical and social
baseline data will be an important starting point for establishing milestones for monitoring,
evaluation, impact assessment and institutional learning. Teams will be equipped with self
assessment skills to be able to gauge the effectiveness of their learning.
Organisational change. Implementation of the SSA-CP programme under the Integrated
Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) paradigm calls for increased stakeholder
involvement to ensure responsiveness to client demands and market opportunities.
Consequently, the stakeholders who are not traditional researchers must be empowered to
participate and to be able to articulate their demands and priorities. Traditional researchers
will also need new skills and attitudes to be able to operate in a multi-stakeholder ‗innovation
system research‘ process and continue to provide cutting edge science to solve the
technological problems that constrain the development process. . This calls for formation of
multi-dimensional inter-institutional and inter-disciplinary partnerships to enhance
institutional capacities to respond to inherent complex needs that characterise IAR4D. It is
crucial that the partnerships go beyond market integration and take into consideration the
sectoral and sub-sectoral interdependency. Capacity development for implementing and
institutionalizing IAR4D entails a gradual nurturing process consisting of tailor made
learning events interspersed with action and reflection to allow participants to link tools and
processes. The process encompasses need for organizational and institutional change,
capacity building for impact-oriented science and for inter-disciplinary skills, a system for
knowledge management and information sharing for up/out scaling and a monitoring &
evaluation and impact assessment to ensure reflection and learning.
ASARECA‘s strategic plan indicates that many of the NARS scientists already have
adequate training and experience in agricultural research (ASARECA 2005). The Validation
Team visited research facilities in the PLS, Kachwekano (NARO), Ruhengeri (ISAR) and
also held discussions with programme leaders in Butare and with scientists from Bukavu
(INERA), DRC. These NARS indicated the need to acquire disciplinary training to
strengthen capacity for impact oriented research, as well as special skills to re-orient them
from business as usual to become team players in business unusual. Universities are
responsible for imparting knowledge and skills to future researchers. They should therefore
incorporate IAR4D skills in their training programmes to roll out graduates who are prepared
to participate in the research agenda. Private sector, especially agro-processors and traders of
agricultural inputs and produce will get more involved in natural research management and
marketing of in smallholder systems. The private sector players have to be sensitised to form
processors‘ and traders‘ associations, and to strengthen linkages with farmer groups and
research. Private sector actors require negotiation skills. Advisory services are involved in
42
farmer group formation and training. These too will benefit from team learning to be able to
empower farmers with the knowledge required to participate in demand-led research systems.
Strengthening farmers’ organizations. One of the most promising features of the Kivu PLS
is the emergence of different forms of farmers‘ organizations with different functions and
roles, from seed multiplication, soil erosion control, bee keeping, marketing, savings and
credit, watershed management, byelaw formulation, restocking, etc. We found several
examples and success cases where the increased level of farmers‘ organization has
accelerated dissemination of knowledge and technologies, accessing market opportunities,
organizing collective marketing, and formulating local policies for natural resources
management, and influencing the research and development agenda. Recent research has
also shown the importance of social capital foundations for sustainable management of
natural resources, successful policy interventions, rural agroenterprise development and
community development (Pretty, 2003). In their account of successes in African agriculture
Gabre-Madhin and Haggblade (2003) stressed that farmers‘ organizations have become a
powerful force for providing an array of collective services including technology
development and testing, collective action in natural resources management, and information
dissemination and sharing.
Empowering farmers‘ organizations is an essential feature of any programme that
addresses poverty, marketing and NRM issues. One key hypothesis guiding IAR4D is that
investments in strengthening social capital will lead to pro-poor sustainable market
institutional (institutional, technology, human, social, policy, amongst others) and
improvement in rural livelihoods for the majority of small scale farmers. IAR4D therefore
requires better understanding of mechanisms and processes for strengthening farmers‘
organizations and other rural innovation systems to contribute to sustainable agricultural
development and enhanced technological and institutional change. While farmers‘
organizations are increasingly becoming an important stakeholder group in agricultural
research and development, there is limited systematic research into their dynamics,
composition, performance and effectiveness. Yet, such analysis is critical to building more
effective ways of organizing and working with farmers' groups, building their capacity to
innovate, experiment and scale up participatory research.
5.6. Refocusing Policies
Implementing IAR4D requires that governments and organizations within the Pilot Learning
Site devise a range of policy instruments that can influence stakeholders behavior for the
adoption of new technologies and enterprises. At the same time, institutions that have
focused primarily upon resource management must now also consider enterprise development
to poverty alleviation. Supporting policies covering the whole spectrum of market
interventions, input availability, produce processing, improving infrastructure, and evoking
organizational change are all necessary to foster profitable production and linkages to
growing markets but too often they cater to the aspirations of endowed land managers rather
than the reality faced by poorer farmers daily.
The problem is not the lack of appropriate policies but rather the mechanism and
capacities for implementing them. For example, there are policy frameworks within the Pilot
Learning Site including the Poverty Eradication Action Plan and the Plan for Modernisation
of Agriculture in Uganda and the Poverty Eradication Strategy Paper and Trade Integration
Programme in Rwanda. These policies are often accompanied with structures and institutions
for their implementation. In their recent review of policy research on African agriculture,
Idachaba (2001) and Omamo (2003) observed that agricultural researchers and policy
43
analysts have failed to put Africa‘s agricultural problems on the policy agenda in more than
abstract fashions. Idachaba (2001) contends that policy analysis is the easier part, “the much
more difficult and rather murkier part is to get the policy implemented and adopted by users;
that is to get the results of policy analysis and policy recommendations into political
decisions by governments”.
44
6. Illustrative Case Studies
6.1 Producing more food: Agricultural input supply
Technologies are ultimately expressed on farms through the availability, purchase and use of
products purchased from retailers (or obtained through farmer organizations). The stockists
of these products tend to specialize in agricultural and veterinary supplies although some key
inputs, such as fertilizers and seeds, are also sold by other merchants just before planting
seasons. Most farm inputs, especially fertilizers and pesticides, are imported to East Africa
through the Port of Mombasa in Kenya and then travel along a pipeline through Nairobi and
Kampala before reaching southwest Uganda, Rwanda and eastern Congo, a distance up to
1800 km. As goods travel along that pipeline, their retail sales prices increase due in part to
the cost of transportation but other factors may also result in price distortion that cause too
many products to be unaffordable to small-scale farmers.
Because of the importance of farm input supply to the improvement of farm enterprises,
special effort was made to visit agro-veterinary merchants throughout the Lake Kivu PLS
during the verification mission. Upon arrival to a market center, a team of two or three
members would ask local informants where farm products are offered for sale, visit the shop,
briefly explain our purpose and ask a series of questions concerning the variety and price of
key farm inputs. When possible, a short open-ended discussion would follow and then the
team would proceed to another input supplier until several, or in some cases all, of the
merchants were interviewed.
Km 1167. Numerous shops specializing in farm inputs and veterinary products are
located along Nakivubo Place and its side streets near the main (new) bus station in Kampala.
These farm input shops specialize in horticultural supplies, particularly vegetable seeds and
pesticides but most shops also sell fertilizers and improved food crop seeds (Photograph 3a).
Some of these shops were also selling grafted fruit tree seedlings ($1.62 each) and day old
layer and broiler chicks ($1.00 and $0.46, respectively). Only one shop, New SK Farm
Supply, offered seeds of traditional Ugandan vegetables.
Km 1605 and 1701. Two shops were located in Kabale Uganda, Kigoro Farm Supply
and Kabale Agro Input Supplies, next to each other in the main market near the bus station.
The latter shop carried many more improved seed of food crops and fertilizers claiming to
sell about 150 fifty-kg bags of fertilizer each month just before each growing season. Two
shops were also located in Kisoro, Uganda, Farmers House and Muganza Shop, one block
apart from one another along the town‘s main street. The first shop specializes in fewer farm
inputs, particularly vegetable seeds and pesticides but also offers some fertilizers (Photograph
3b). The second shop is a hardware store that also sells some farm products. This shop
claims to sell about 100 fifty-kg bags before each growing season and a similar amount of
fertilizers repackaged into smaller quantities. The owner of Muganza Shop is involved in the
transport of many different trade goods into Kisoro and takes special orders for agricultural
inputs delivered from Kampala.
Km 1738. Farmers‘ demand for farm inputs, especially fertilizers, is much greater in
Ruhengari, Rwanda than in neighboring southeastern Uganda and Goma, Congo. This town
has three large fertilizer distributors across the street from its town market and numerous
other smaller agro-veterinary shops. The fertilizer distributors only sell fertilizers and also
deal in other bulk products such as salt. A crude estimate is that these fertilizer distributors
45
market 1600 fifty-kg bags of fertilizer per month at the onset of each growing season. The
smaller shops repackage these fertilizers and also sell vegetable seeds, pesticides and other
farm inputs. At least two of these smaller shops are operated by agricultural cooperatives and
were extremely busy at the time of our visit (it was difficult to conduct a full interview).
Curiously, none of these shops market improved food crop seeds, such as maize or pulses,
although two merchants indicated that these seeds are often available through the nearby
NAR station (ISAR). Stockists reported that their goods were obtained from both Kampala,
Uganda and Kigali and truckloads of fertilizer, which enter Rwanda duty-free, were observed
at the border crossing near Kisoro, Uganda.
Km 1744. Kigali is slightly outside of the Lake Kivu PLS but it serves as a source of
farm inputs to much of Rwanda. Several farm supply shops were observed on the outskirts of
the city along the Butare Road and in the main business district on and near Rue Eymgne.
Surprisingly, these shops were not open on Saturday morning or mid-afternoon, 22 October
when the team sought to obtain information from them. At first, we were informed that the
fourth Saturday of every month was devoted to community cleanup, but this apparently did
not deter the countless beauty shops, internet cafes and others that were open for business.
Furthermore, only one of these shops, Agro-Tech was listed in the Rwandan telephone
directory. Indeed, one must question how serious these business persons really are or how
weak the demand for farm inputs might be!
Km 1807. Our search of a merchant specializing in farm inputs in Goma, DR Congo was
only partially successful. A well known shop was evidently destroyed by the 2004 lava flow
and its new location could not be discovered despite repeated inquiries. Two hardware stores
that also offer a limited selection of farm supplies were eventually located on a side street in
downtown Goma. Neither shop markets fertilizers nor seeds of field crops such as improved
maize or pulses. The Quincaillerie Kivu store imports a wide selection of East Africa Seed
Co. vegetable seed from Kampala and repackages them into 50 g as to a service to
development organizations but sells very little directly to farmers (Photograph 3c). The lack
of a merchant specializing in farm inputs in so large a city (>500,000 inhabitants) and
servicing so large a rural area suggests that most farmers in North Kivu do not rely upon
purchased inputs.
The farm input pipeline. Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) is the most widely distributed
fertilizer within the Pilot Learning Center but it is not available in DR Congo (Table 7). This
fertilizer contains 18% nitrogen and 20% phosphorus, the two nutrients that field observation
suggests are limiting in most of the soils. The next two most available fertilizers are urea and
Triple 17. Urea is a concentrated form of nitrogen (46%) compared to other nitrogen-bearing
fertilizers that partially offsets the high cost of transportation. It is, however, difficult to
manage because of its highly reduced form and potential volatility. The widespread
availability of Triple 17 NPK fertilizers suggests that it is used on vegetable crops and
potatoes that have higher potassium requirements and less extensive root systems. CAN
fertilizer, that is very well suited as a top dressing of field crops with high nitrogen demands,
is not offered for sale within the pilot learning site suggesting that the fertilizer management
is not particularly sophisticated.
Clearly as fertilizers move down the supply pipeline, their price increases (Table 7). Note
that the three fertilizers reported in both Nairobi and Ruhengeri, DAP, urea and Triple 17,
increase in price by $0.13, $0.11 and $0.12 per kg respectively, or an average of $0.12.
Considering the distance travelled (1254 km), this is equivalent to $0.10 per km ton. Based
upon past experience, this increase in price is slightly greater than the cost charged by
transporters in Nairobi ($0.06 to $0.08 per km ton) but may also reflect the recent increase in
fuel prices. The prices charged in Kabale are anomalous and likely reflect weak demand and
weak competition by other merchants. Considering the paucity of agro-minerals in East
46
Africa, mineral fertilizers are unlikely to become produced more locally in the near future.
The key to producing more food at less costs involves improving fertilizer use efficiency,
and supplementing mineral fertilizers with locally-processed organic inputs.
Table 7. Availability and price of fertilizer as it moves through the supply pipeline to and
within the Kivu PLS.
location distance fertilizers DAP CAN Urea Triple 17 Other
(km) (no. sold) ----------------------- $US kg-1
------------------------
Nairobi 484 5 0.45 0.37 0.42 0.45 SSP @ 0.36
Kampala 1167 6 0.52 0.45 0.52 0.51 SSP @ 0.51
Kabale 1605 3 0.59 n.a. 0.59 0.59 n.a.
Kisoro 1701 2 0.54 n.a n.a. 0.54 25-5-5 @ 0.54
Ruhengeri 1738 3 0.58 n.a. 0.53 0.57
Goma 1807 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
The supply pipeline for improved seed of field crops does not extend as far as fertilizers and
are less influenced by distance from suppliers. It is difficult to attribute this effect with the
limited evidence collected by the Validation Team but several factors may come into play.
Perhaps the seeds produced elsewhere do not perform well in the PLS. Perhaps farmers are
unable or unwilling to invest in improved field crops seed. Because seeds expire, and
fertilizers do not, merchants are less willing to carry them. More detailed investigation is
certainly in order to better understand the price structure and diminished availability of
field crop seeds because the use of hybrids and improved varieties, particularly in the more
fertile soils is a means to greatly improve food production.
Considering the selection of vegetable seed, pesticides and spraying equipment
throughout the retailers visited in the PLS, it appears that farm input supply is more
responsive to marketable, higher value crops (Photograph 3). If this is indeed the case, then
producing and fairly marketing farm surpluses of field crops, particularly potatoes, maize and
beans, may serve as a stimulus for a greater variety of farm input products. The challenge
remains how to break the present cycle of no investment leading to poor yield leading to
low incomes and the inability to invest. How can agricultural research assist poor farmers
on small farms to break this cycle?
Photograph 3. Farm inputs along the ―supply pipeline‖: a) well stocked agricultural input
shop in Kampala, b) a hardware merchant stocked with imported vegetable seeds and some
fertilizers in Kisoro and c) a paucity of farm inputs sold alongside hand tools and paints in
Goma.
47
6.2 Improving markets: Nandos and the Nyambumba United Farmers
Group
Nandos‘ business activities and challenges represent those of a typical food processing outlet
in the region. Being a conglomerate of multinational fast food restaurants with holdings in
South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, the firm has access to expertise and best
practices in fast food business and the capacity to provide a secure source of effective
demand for chicken and potato out-growers. The main problem that Nandos faces is the
availability and consistent supply of good quality potato throughout the year for the
restaurant in Kampala. Ideal potato for chips should have no ‗eyes‘, be oval in shape and
should not be less than 380 g in size. Nandos requires 15 tons of potato per month.
In response to this situation, the Nyabyumba United Farmers Group was formed in
Kabale to supply potatoes to Nandos. The group has 125 members and markets 7.5 tons of
potatoes in 125-kg bags to Nandos every two weeks through forward contracts for the past
27 months. Potatoes are sorted and bulked at a collection point (Photograph 4). The group
appears well-organized. Farmers kept records of production and marketing activities to keep
track of profitability of their investments. The groups‘ market intelligence and record keeping
skills enabled them to construct a benefit:cost analysis presented in Table 8. The estimated
benefit to cost ratio is 1.7 implying that farmers are operating on a 70% returns on
investments. If only cash costs are considered, the benefit to cost ratio increases to 2.3. The
economic analysis does not consider the purchase and depreciation of knapsack sprayers and
the need by some members to rent land, but it clearly indicates that room exists to improve
the profitability. The farmers purchase and plant disease-free seeds (tubers) of Victoria red
potato on steep slopes, applying fertilizer (about 50 kg per hectare) and dimethoate fungicide.
Farmers also obtained discounts through collective purchase of these inputs with improved
quality of inputs. Helping producers acquire the knowledge and means for delivering high-
quality products to the market appears to be a real opportunity. This would entail
promoting farmer associations, assisting them to develop their own warehouses and buy
relatively inexpensive cleaning equipment, and then linking them to markets.
Photograph 4. The biweekly shipment of potatoes from the Nyabyumba United Farmers
Group (7.5 t) is loaded onto a lorry for transport to Nandos restaurants in Kampala.
48
The group regards soil degradation and occasional drought their greatest production
challenges. It seeks to develop irrigation facilities so that potato production is improved
during the drier months when presently they suffer difficulties from meeting their monthly
contract with Nandos. The development of irrigation within the hillside farms poses a large
research and engineering challenge given the terrain and the farmers’ limited financial
resources. There is however wetland in the valley bottoms and a small pump could certainly
provide water to the lower slopes. Transportation costs are the highest single costs with
transporters charging $0.08 per kilometre ton. The group hopes to purchase their own lorry
to transport their potatoes.
Members claim that they produce beans twice a year but market their surpluses
individually. Developing a system for post harvest handling, grading and marketing of
beans and other pulses by small scale farmers associations poses a research challenge. The
group also expressed interest in initiating and managing a revolving fund so that they would
not be required to secure a bank loan before each cropping season and stated their intention to
enter into value addition of potatoes by developing potato crisps. Micro-finance and value
addition thus offer opportunity for developmental research which should be undertaken in a
manner suited for different types of farming and socio-economic settings. Nandos also
developed a working arrangement with UgaChick Poultry Limited in Gayaza which supplies
the 900 chickens weekly at the average price of USh 4000 per bird. Nandos requires that the
chicken not exceed 1.3 kg. Efforts by Nandos to locally source cheese, ice cream and
mayonnaise and sauces have not succeeded. According to Isaac Kerube, Nandos‘ Production
Manager, this is an area for research. Research is needed to better understand how groups of
smallholder farmers can secure forward contracts from top-end buyers and then meet their
quality requirements and delivery schedules.
Table 8. The costs and returns of potato production by the Nyambumba United Farmers
Group near Kabale, Uganda.
costs per bag
Production
Seed
USh
5000
US$
2.70
Details
50000 per bag
Fertilizer 1800 0.97 1.5 kg @ UgSh1200 per kg Pesticide 1000 0.54 Dimethoate insecticide farm labor
Marketing
Bag
5000
105
2.70
0.06
2 days @ UgSh 2500 ea
UgSh 700 ea w/15% attrition
local transport 2000 1.08 hand carry to collection point loading & weighing 1100 0.59 includes unloading in Kampala group fee 200 0.11 includes grading Transport 8000 4.32 8 t lorry to Kampala total cost per bag 24205 13.08 gross return
sales to Nandoos
40250
21.76
125 kg bag @ UgSh 322/kg net return 16045 8.67
benefit:cost ratio 1.66 1.66
47
6.3 Diversifying enterprises 1: Money from honey
Beekeeping is well-known as a traditional activity within the Pilot Learning Site but less
appreciated as an income generating pursuit. The market for honey exists but there is need to
be a mindset change among beekeepers in the PLS. They need to see the business opportunity
and need to realize that the natural resources exist to maintain at least 50000 modern beehives
in the PLS. This could lead to the production of 2500 tonnes of honey and 25 tonnes of
beeswax per year.
Beekeepers in Uganda and Rwanda maintain hives in the buffer zone around the national
parks. Beekeeping is ideally suited as a non-intrusive agricultural activity in the buffer zone
and since the bees fly up to 5 km to collect nectar, water, gum and pollen they do not need to
be placed deep into the forest. The increased number of bee colonies in the forest ensures the
pollination of fruit species in the forest that are eaten by other animals. The Zambian
Beekeepers Association has been very successful in exporting their organic honey to Europe
and they have already indicated to the Rwandan beekeeping projects in the buffer zone that
they require 100 tonnes of honey per month. The beekeepers benefit tremendously from
Eucalyptus that has colonized the area. The beekeepers association of Uganda are marketing
Eucalyptus honey in their store in
Kisoro. The beekeepers in Rwanda
cannot produce enough honey for their
local market.
The most common uses of hive
products are the selling of liquid honey,
beeswax candles and propolis mixes.
However there is no knowledge of hive
products for the cosmetic and leather
industry, beehives use for pollination
services, pollen use as protein
supplement etc. Traditional beehives in
Eucalyptus trees can be seen next to the
roads in Rwanda. There is also an apiary
site on the way to Ruhengeri where the
beekeeper is using a combination of
traditional as well as Langstroth hives.
One of the top fruit processors in
Rwanda also
keeps bees and
markets the
honey in Kigali.
His facility for
the food
processing
could easily be
used for
bottling of
extracted honey
using modern
extracting machines.
48
One of the successful associations is the Kisoro Beekeepers Association from Kisoro,
Uganda. The Association was established in 1997 with 400 members. These numbers have
grown to 565 in 2005. The initial start-up funding was around US $18000. The association is
self-sustaining and employs 4 permanent staff members who have to market, manage and
process the hive products that association members deliver to the processing plant. The comb
pieces are processed manually into liquid honey and the beeswax cast into candles. The
honey is marketed as Mgahinga Honey and sold in 500 g jars. Honey production by the group
ranges between 8 to 9 tons per year which does not meet the need of their local buyers. The
group sells processed honey for $1.12 per kg which is resold in supermarkets in Kampala for
$2.72. The association introduced a profit sharing system when beekeepers deliver 100 kg of
honey or more, however, the average income for the producers was only $7 last year. Their
outlet in Kisoro also sells beeswax candles, propolis and honey vinegar. The smallest amount
of honey is only 15 ml intended for sale to the poor for medicinal purposes.
Beekeepers in Uganda have lost bee colonies due to crop spraying and had to get special
permission to keep their hives in the forest. However, this means that they are very far from
their hives and cannot manage or inspect them easily. The extraction of honey from broken
combs is difficult; the honey that is delivered is mixed with pollen and brood and sometimes
not ripe which make it difficult for the processing plant to package top quality honey. The
Kisoro Beekeepers Association has market linkages in place but there is opportunity to
expand to the rest of the PLS and then export to Zambia, South Africa and Europe. Expansion
may require mechanized facilities, use of modern hives and new management practices and
development of portable hives used for pollination services.
Several important challenges exist in the facilitation of beekeeping. An effective
mechanism to introduce modern hives and accompanying management practices is not well
understood. Despite limited use of insecticides, beekeepers report the loss of bee swarms due
to crop spraying. The processing facilities are not sufficiently hygienic and the quality of
beeswax does not meet the standards required for the top-end cosmetic industry. The
products require marketing research that promotes its environmentally-friendly role. Clearly, a
variety of research investments are required before beekeeping can achieve its full
potential within the Pilot Learning Site.
49
6.4 Diversifying enterprises 2: Emerging from conflict (again)
Kibumba is a small market center about 25 km north of Goma in DR Congo that is facing
difficulties emerging from civil strife that has plagued the area for more than a decade. In the
past, the inhabitants raised cattle and practiced small-scale agriculture on the lower foot
slopes of the Virunga Mountains, specifically Mount Nyamulagira and Mikeno, on the
margins of the Virunga national park. Suddenly a massive influx of refugees arrived from
Rwanda in 1994 destabilizing the community by placing excessive demands upon its limited
resources and services. Two years later, civil war caused most residents to flee the area
leaving behind their livestock. Upon their return, they discovered the area was then occupied
by foreign troops who did not protect their land rights against migrating pastoralists (from the
same country). As they attempted to restock their herds and establish market farming for
nearby Goma, civil war erupted again in 1998 to 2000 and since then the area may be
described as insecure. The Congo has re-established control of this area by placing police
and infantry along every road and patrolling the park‘s forests and the community may be
described as emerging from conflict once again.
The farmers are now cultivating
potatoes, beans, maize and coco yams for
food and market. Producing onions,
carrots and other vegetable for markets in
Goma is being adopted by many
households (Photograph 5). The
communities‘ cattle herds were so
depleted they are yet to recover. Two
NGOs are presently assisting the
community to establish market agriculture,
control land degradation and restock their
herds. PADA (Programme d‘Appui au
Development Agricole), founded in 2001,
has organized collection points for
produce and provides advice to farmers. It
charges each household a one-time
membership fee of US $5 and annual dues
of $1 for its services and claims to have
almost 2000 members. It produces several
different tree seedlings, eucalyptus,
calliandra, casuarinas and croton for its
members, claiming to have distributed
over 8000 in 2005. The NGO has also
organized farmers to collectively plant the
seedlings through ―food for work‖ with
assistance from the World Food
Programme, WWF and other international
NGOs. Many other organizations have
intervened in Kibumba and neighbouring
communities under their emergency and
humanitarian programmes for the last 5
years. Research is needed on mechanisms
and processes for making a transition from
emergency humanitarian operations to
Photograph 5. Onions and maize in
Kibumba, DR Congo. Note the inexpert
weed management (foreground) and diseased
maize (right).
Photograph 6. A homemade bicycle loaded
with potatoes transport 25 km to Goma.
50
more sustainable development interventions that empower farmers to plan and manage their
own initiatives. The group‘s major concerns are low prices offered by opportunistic
middlemen, high cost of transport to Goma, armed robbery, and lack of improved varieties of
potato. Because transporting one 100 kg bag of produce by truck costs $6, goods are often
ferried on homemade bicycles (Photograph 6) directly to Goma or to Kibumba market where
traders from Goma collect the goods. PADA is now helping farmers to organize collective
marketing of their produce through two warehouses in Goma.
APRONA (Association pour la Protection de la Nature) is another NGO that is assisting
the community to restock its goats. The activity started in 2002 with 420 goats obtained
through UNDP by giving two nanny goats to each of 200 households and retaining a small
nucleus herd. Each household then passed on the first two offspring to other households
when they are four months old. The NGO, through its small office in Kibumba market,
provides veterinary assistance, recruits new members and monitors the distribution process.
This approach appears to work! The communities herd is now over 1300 strong and goats
have been provided to over 600 households. One founding member household has increased
its herd to 15 animals over the past three years. The members are not entirely satisfied with
their accomplishments however because they prefer to raise cattle. They claim that the prices
offered for goats is too low (about $20 per head) and that there is little preference or market
for goat milk. One positive effect is that the goat milk is fed almost exclusively to children
with members referring to it as medicine.
Numerous opportunities for research and rural enterprise development exist in Kibumba
and its neighbouring communities but at some peril. The nearest government agricultural
station has been abandoned due to the instability of the area. The NGOs that perform so
admirably lack access to current information and lack capacity to produce extension material.
Workers with PADA were not fully aware of the multiple uses of the tree species they
distribute, particularly calliandra and croton as a feed for ruminants and poultry, respectively.
The seedlings of both calliandra and casuarina lacked root nodules, indicating that their
symbiotic capacities to fix atmospheric nitrogen are unnecessary reduced. Nitrogen
deficiency is widespread, even on beans another symbiotic legume. Much of the land is
rocky and their proper management difficult. Water is unavailable to the community during
the dry season because its delivery system was destroyed by war and water harvesting
techniques are not well understood. Several diseases were noted on maize as most farmers
cultivate an unimproved land race. Poor access to improved potato seed perpetuates disease
and reduces its production and market price. The production constrains in Kibumba and its
neighboring communities require the attention of several agricultural disciplines and there
appears to be a ready market for new ideas and technologies among the existing rural
development interests.
That the residents of Kibumba and its neighboring communities are recovering is a tribute
to human perseverance. They have been forced repeatedly to flee their homes and farms and
returned to find them looted and destroyed. They have seen their road and water delivery
infrastructure degraded by senseless warfare. They have lived under military occupation and
constant threat from well armed bandits. Once civil conflict was more-or-less brought under
control, nature showed its wrath in the form of volcanic activity and lava flows that covered
thousands of hectares and further destroyed roads. Kibumba and many other communities
in DR Congo offer opportunities for research into understanding the mechanisms for
recovery and resilience of agricultural systems and livelihood strategies in armed conflict
situations.
51
6.5 Sustaining agricultural resources: Hillside conservation
Most highlands in Eastern and Central Africa are characterized by high population densities.
It is considered that early settlement of these areas was a result of the agricultural suitability
of the highland environments, particularly the volcanic derived soils, and security from
deadly tropical diseases, notably malaria. Forest and natural vegetation were cleared and
converted to agricultural land. The earlier settlers realized the need to conserve the soil from
physical degradation processes, mainly erosional, by allowing terraces to gradually develop
behind grass strips, trash lines and stone barriers. This ensured continued food security.
These practices were further emphasized during the colonial period during when maintenance
of these structures also started demanding convincing economic arguments. As these were
not forthcoming, less effort was put into the maintenance of terrace structures. Both
remaining terrace benches and the new fields with depleted conservation structures developed
systematic variation in crop production, giving low or no yields on their upper sections, and
progressive yield increases down slope. The uneven productivity is hypothesized to be a
result of (i) ergonomic tillage along the slope, but which scours the topsoil on the upper parts
of the terrace with consequent deposition on the lower parts and, (ii) intensive pulverization
of soils for growing of two or more crops during the year which creates suitable conditions
for erosion, and (iii) lack of incentives for farmers to invest in soil fertility input and physical
conservation technologies. Having been cleared of their natural vegetation, the lowlands
have only limited capacity to retain deposited soils. The Validation Team observed three
approaches to hillside conservation approaches: utilizing existing structures and resources
into beneficial conservation structures (hedgerows and stone lines), community-based
enforcement of bylaws (hill domes in Kisoro) and economic enterprise-led reduced tillage
(perennial high-value crop, livestock pastures and feeds).
Hedgerows are found along the slope contour and around homes throughout Rwanda and
southwest Uganda but these appear to be intended more to mark land boundaries than to
contain soil erosion (Photograph 7). This conclusion is reached because 1) the contour
hedgerows are spaced far apart on even the steepest slopes, 2) the contour hedges are
intersected by vertical ones, 3) little or no terracing occurs between the widely spaced hedges
and 4) no special conservation measures appear to be in place where severe soil erosion has
resulted in rocky outcrops. Nonetheless, farmers obviously devote time and resources toward
the hedges. Near homes, the hedges are mixtures of Dracaena africana and Euphorbia spp.
that are started from stem cuttings and
reinforced with sticks and wire to reduce
access. Nearby fields are frequently marked
by hedges of Erythrina sp., a nitrogen fixing
legume that may be started from cuttings or
seed. Outfields are marked with mixtures of
Erythrina sp., Lantana camara and other
shrubs. Trimmings from the hedgerows
appear to not be used as inputs to soil. This
is the case even for the symbiotic legume
erythrina which has stout, sharp thorns along
its stems. Clearly, the development of more
productive multiple use hedges is an
important area for research. Furthermore,
the paucity of fodder species, such as
Pennesetum atropurpureum (napier grass) or
Calliandra calothrysrus (a fodder legume)
Photograph 7. The steep cultivated slopes
near Kabale, Uganda illustrate the
challenge of developing soil conservation
strategies useful to farmers.
52
within these hedges may be limiting the
development of confined livestock
enterprise.
Farmers who cultivate extremely steep
slopes are faced with a dilemma because
their options for land conservation are
limited and they must always conduct their
field operations from the bottom to the top,
unlike moderate slopes where it is more
feasible to work along the soil contour. The
options for conservation are limited because
structures intended to protect the soil, such
as contour bunds or bench terraces are
difficult to construct and risk being
undermined from below. One consequence
of these limitations in rocky soils is the
development of vertical stone lines
(Photograph 8). Basically, as farmers
digging upslope encounter rocks, they place
Photograph 8. The vertical stone lines that
develop from ―bottom-to-top‖ cultivation
of steep rocky slopes.
them either to the left or right. As more rocks are encountered, they are placed next to or on
top of the others causing lines, and in the rockiest locations, walls to form that run vertically
from the top to the bottom of the field. These vertical stone lines defy the basic convention
of soil conservation, to place physical obstructions along the slope contour to check the
momentum of runoff and the soils it carries. Proponents of this traditional practice argue that
the rock lines nonetheless cover and protect a large proportion of soil and the risks of rocks
becoming loose and dangerously rolling downhill are less. Nonetheless, massive amounts of
soil are eroding and the traditional practice of vertical rock lines is doing very little to reduce
loss. The practice of vertical stone line formation requires more detailed study as does the
opportunity to convert them into contour walls for bench terracing. The development of
these walls will require arduous labor but if properly constructed will become a permanent
feature of the landscape and better protect soils for future generations. Furthermore, water
harvesting and irrigation will become feasible on the terraces.
One traditional conservation measure, natural fallows, is now seldom practiced due to
scarcity of land. Land is continually tilled and planted to the traditional annual crops,
sometimes supporting up to three crops a year where climate is favourable. Such tillage
practices often leave soils exposed, pulverised and vulnerable to erosion during periods
before crop canopy is developed enough to provide cover. When the land is exhausted, it is
abandoned, sometimes also referred to as fallowing. Jonathan Bakama of Hamurwa in
Kabale District acquired such exhausted land. In order to control large volumes of runoff
water that was passing through his land, he constructed vertical water channels to lead the
water away, reinforced with elephant grass to minimise widening of the channel. That was
until he learnt from an extension agent, that contour-based water trap benches can better
control runoff, store more moisture and, when reinforced with livestock fodder crops, enable
him diversify into the livestock farming. Mr. Bakama is now operating semi-confined goat
and diary units. The livestock manure is used to rehabilitate the grass cover and in the
establishment of fruit crops. This is one successful example of the integrating livestock, crop
and natural resource system concept. The practice of integrated production systems
requires more research, information and policy support to attract consolidation of land
management activities at community level to achieve a watershed effect.
53
6.6 Fostering biodiversity: Hard Edge versus Buffer Zones
The wildlife and conservation authorities in Congo, Rwanda and Uganda do not generally
believe in Buffer Zones surrounding national parks and other nature reserves, rather they
support what is called a Hard Edge. Buffer Zones assume that inhabitants adjacent to nature
reserves be granted limited rights to the periphery of natural resources in return for honouring a
set of principles that are designed to protect those reserves and its biodiversity. A Hard
Edge simply prohibits those inhabitants from accessing the park as a means to reduce human
interference within it.
Several arguments were presented to support the Hard Edge over Buffer Zones but are Hard
Edges also hard on neighbouring communities? Hard Edges permit the construction of
fences designed to prevent large mammals from damaging crops and injuring people. Hard
Edges prevent the spread of disease from wildlife to domestic animals and from humans to
apes, especially habituated gorillas. Wildlife is less able to recognize Buffer Zones with its
subtle gradients and will simply expand their feeding areas accordingly resulting in greater
damage to farmers fields. Buffer Zones are very difficult to police and enforce. Buffer Zones
require complex arrangements of indirect compensation while rewarding neighbours and
communities honouring the Hard Edges is more straightforward.
Charles Izaara, Principal Surveyor in the Kabale District Local Government, provided an
example of a successful Hard Edge established at the Mgahinga National Park. This park
occupies 34 km2
of step slopes and is part of the larger Virunga Conservation Area in
Uganda, Congo and Rwanda (Bygott and Hanby, 1998). Hunting is banned within the
conservation area and crop damage by wildlife created tension between the park authorities
and neighbouring inhabitants. In response, a fence one meter tall and nine km long was built
of stone along the park boundary that was designated a ―buffalo fence‖ because it was
considered strong and tall enough to contain buffalos and forest elephants. To compensate
neighbouring households for their denial of forest resources, 20% of park revenues are
provided to them either as services to the community (schools, running water, medical
clinics) or through their preferred hiring as labourers in projects within the park.
Neighbouring inhabitants are also permitted entry into the park to collect honey,
traditional medicines and planting material, such as bamboo rhizomes. This arrangement
appears to be working well although smaller wildlife, especially baboons, cross the fence and
continue to damage croplands and there is little evidence of emerging small-scale eco-tourism
enterprise adjacent to the park. One park ranger (Photograph 9) commented that the buffalo
wall has accumulated sediments in places and its height has decreased but we were unable to
document these areas.
One group that has not been treated particularly well in the process of protecting the park
is the Batwa, pygmies that are believed to be the first inhabitants of the area. For millennia,
they lived as hunters and gatherers in the forest leaving little mark upon it (Bygot and Hanby,
1998). Bantu tribes arrived about 2000 years ago and cleared most of the land for cultivation
but the Batwa remained in the diminishing forest until they were eventually evicted from the
park during the 1990s. The Batwa were provided small parcels of land outside the park but
they have little experience in agriculture and mostly work as low paid laborers. An
opportunity exists to study the process through which evicted forest inhabitants can better
adjust to their changing circumstances, become effective land managers and develop more
secure livelihood strategies.
A different approach is under development at the nearby Bwindi National Park that
contains the ―Impenetrable Forest‖. The park occupies 331 km2
of hilly montane forest and has been designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO because of its tremendous plant and animal biodiversity. Neighbouring inhabitants are offered preferred hiring, revenue sharing
54
and animal control programs
but are generally denied access
to forest resources within the
park. In response to severe
damage to cropland by wildlife,
a 350 m ―Buffer Zone‖ was
recently gazetted from private
land along 12 km of park
boundary from neighboring
farms, an area of 450 ha (or
1000 acres). This action
affected 491 households that
were paid Uganda Shillings
750 million (about $417,000)
to relocate. The intention was
to reduce the damage to
cropland by establishing an
Photograph 9. A wildlife ranger discusses buffer zone
issues with team member Kehinde Makinde in the
Mgahinga National Park.
area of preferred grazing of secondary vegetation but this was unsuccessful as wildlife
appeared to immediately enter newly adjacent farms as well. A new approach is being
considered within the buffer strip, planting a band 150 m wide (or 180 ha) in tea so that
wildlife can clearly distinguish this ―Buffer Zone‖ but this initiative is proving difficult to sell
to conservation agencies for funding. Also being considered were artemesia and Aloe vera.
The Virunga National Park in DR Congo also practices a mixture of hard edge and buffer
zone strategies. Under law, no one is to enter the park without a permit issued by its
authorities, however, during the wars in Rwanda and Congo land invasions occurred. The
park is now evicting these farmers and providing them with new land to the west of Lake
Edward. To reinforce park boundaries among local communities, the park built a 20 km
―buffalo fence‖ to contain larger wildlife (FZS, 2004). This effort involves 28 neighboring
land manager associations and employed 1278 members. In addition, several buffer zones
were established from lands where invaders were evicted. These range in width from 500 to
4000 m and neighbouring inhabitants are permitted to gather dead fall fuel wood and other
non-timber products. The opportunity to develop market-oriented farm enterprises that
deter wildlife is a unique area for research and, given the size of the park, a key entry point
for development. The possibility of establishing epiphytic gardens featuring plant
biodiversity otherwise inaccessible to even the most adventurous park visitors as community-
based tourist attractions was also raised.
This response by the Governments of Uganda and Congo suggests that our Buffer Zone
hypotheses and research questions may be naive. New strategies for livelihood depend upon
sufficient numbers of tourists visiting the area to support neighbouring residents through
employment and small business opportunities related to environmental protection and
awareness. Even when this occurs, the returns from agriculture are not greatly affected
unless a substantially greater demand for higher value and specialty crops also results.
Clearly, the Government of Uganda has not yet ascribed to the concept of Buffer Zones in
their fullest sense but that, given soft footprints, authorities are willing to permit residents to
collect non-timber forest products and to compensate them for their cooperation. The
processes of softening the Hard Edge policies imposed by conservation authorities upon
neighboring inhabitants and modifying cropping systems so that they are less attractive to
wildlife deserve greater study so that site specific factors are better taken into account and
corrective adjustments made when either the park’s natural resources or its neighbors’
livelihoods become threatened.
55
Cows 295150 39821 -87% goats 37200 27440 -26% sheep 108006 45451 -58% pork 121500 34167 -72% poultry 2567000 1208173 -53%
6.7 Strengthening institutions: Private sector dynamics in Eastern Congo
The Democratic Republic of Congo has experienced several armed conflicts, civil unrest and
wars in the recent decades which have resulted in the collapse of public sector, particularly in
agriculture. The private business sector, which
was one of the key pillars of agricultural
development and export marketing, has equally
been dramatically affected. Many plantations
were abandoned, several factories and
Table 9. The decline in agro-processing
(top) and farm animals (below) resulting
from civil unrest in Eastern Congo.
Processing before 1996 after 1996
processing industries have closed (Table 9, top) rice 22 10 and several businesses were destroyed. From oil palm 3 0 1992 to 1998, livestock were greatly reduced cotton 1 0 (Table 9, bottom) to forced migration of farm sugarcane 1 0 households and looting by several armies that quinine 1 1 operated within the area. coffee 4 1 The challenge is how to rebuild these factories
which were providing outlets and markets for
small scale farmers and how to restock the
herds of households reliant upon animal
tea 9 3
Total 41 15
enterprises. Farm 1992 1998 change
Policy incentives for developing small scale
and low cost cottage industries and agro-
processing factories will add value to farm
produce and animal products, and improve their
marketing. Research results and lessons in other
countries, particularly Uganda and Rwanda, will
be necessary to guide policies, strategies and
investment decisions for facilitating rapid
recovery and resilience of agricultural systems
during armed conflicts.
animal
Sources. Provincial Division of
Agriculture, South Kivu (top) and
Service National des Statistiques
Agricoles, Goma, North Kivu (below).
Despite the gloomy statistics, some private businesses are thriving. In the Lake Kivu Pilot
Learning Site, the private sector is investing in both food crops such as oil crops, tuber crops,
cereals, pulses, and industrial crops namely tea, Cinchona sp., Prunus Africana, sugar cane,
papaya and coffee. For example, Domaine de Katale based in Rutshuru has its own
aeroplanes for transporting agricultural goods to Kinshasa and other major cities in DR
Congo. The majority of livestock in North Kivu is owned by the private sector. With
prospects of reunification and peace in the eastern part of DRC, there are now several airlines
and air freight companies that transport food products (beans, potatoes, vegetables and
livestock products, and fish) daily for marketing to Kinshasa and other major cities in DRC.
One such company is Pharmakina. Its main activities are based on management of
Cinchona plantations and processing for the production of quinine, and supply of the raw
material needed for anti-malarial medication. Pharmakina plantations and suppliers is
located in the Kivu Pilot Learning Site where about 80% of the world cinchona trees grow.
In addition to owning and exploiting its own plantations (3090 ha), Pharmakina also
organizes an out-grower scheme of farmers associations and cooperatives, and individual
producers of cinchona (Figure 8) which operate over 3000 ha. Dried bark is purchased for
56
US $1.00 to $1.20 per kg and about 1700 t of cinchona bark is purchased and processed by
Pharmakina each year.
There are significant
challenges for small scale
farmers to organize
themselves into more
powerful cooperatives to
collective access services
provided by Pharmakina,
and produce barks with
high standards, and
therefore obtain better price
for the producer.
Organizing farmers into
effective cooperatives and
increase their technical and
business skills remain a
challenge that Research and
Development organizations
can address. Often
export
markets
other large
farms
1000 ha
small-scale
farmers
300 ha
external
markets
Pharmakina
Quinine Factory
1700 t
PK nuclear
plantations
969 ha
domestic
markets
GAP Producers
Associations
590 ha
SYDIP (Federation of
Farmers Associations)
2500 ha
Medium scale
Producers
700 ha
individual farmers are not
able to access credits and
expand their production.
Figure 8. Suppliers and areas of Cinchona bark in Nort
Kavu, DR Congo.
The banking system in DRC has collapsed and there are no mechanisms for accessing credits
to invest in agriculture. At the same time, there are now a number of emerging savings and
credit associations and cooperatives that finance non farm business. Developing financial
institutions that support agricultural development is a key challenge to help individual
producers to expand their production capacities.
Pharmakina has diversified its activities and is also moving into food crops. This is still
preliminary, and working through associations and groups of former plantation workers.
However, they lack improved materials and farming technologies to produce high quality
products that can be sold in urban markets. Pharmakina is now collaborating with INERA
(Institut National d‘Etudes et Recherches Agronomiques) to produce, multiply and
disseminate certified seeds of key commodities such as rice, maize, cassava and grain
legumes. INERA is also using Pharmakina Laboratory facilities for quality assurance, and
laboratory analysis of various research protocols. INERA has also helped Pharmakina on soil
and plant analysis. Laboratory facilities at Pharmakina are cutting edge technologies and can
help public research institutions and universities to do their analysis. There are opportunities
for the private sector to take on some roles and provide research services to the public
sector. The challenge is to develop effective mechanisms based on business principles for
close partnerships between public research institutions and private business sector.
58
7. Entry Points for Research and Enterprise Development
Entry points for research are essential things that must be learned for science to fully
contribute to interventions intended to improve the lives of rural stakeholders within the pilot
learning site. They are specific and relate to research hypotheses and questions. They should
be understable in terms of what investigations are required. Although they are presented
separately, they need to be integrated to achieve desired outcomes.
7.1 Technological innovations for producing more food
The low yields of food crops and livestock within the pilot learning site are largely the result
of the reduced yield potential of unimproved landraces confounded by diminishing soil
fertility and uncontrolled pests and diseases. The Farm Input Supply case study (Section 6.2)
concluded that few farmers plant improved, disease-resistant crop varieties or apply fertilizers
and pesticides except for farmers who are required to meet industry standards and are well
connected to markets (see Section 6.5). Similar accounts were given regarding
supplementary feeding and disease control in livestock. Clearly, increased use of purchased
key farm inputs is an important step to increasing food crop yield. In many settings, both the
availability of those inputs and the capacity for farmers‘ investment must be expanded. It is,
however, the several crop and livestock disorders resulting from pests and diseases, that the
stakeholders considered most limiting in production, for which research was considered very
important. Farmers, agricultural officers and processors in the PLS expressed concern over
uncontrolled banana wilt, late blight of potatoes, bean root rot and stem maggot, passion fruit
woodiness and rust on wheat. Livestock production is plagued by such diseases as East Coast
Fever, mastitis, and contagious pleuro-pneumonia. The VT proposes "iterative problem-
solving through adaptive on-farm research" on better management of existing crops which
involves adjusting plant populations, planting arrangements, legume rotations, relay
intercrops, IPM, crop-livestock interactions and other well-established agricultural principles
that are lacking among the farms within the Pilot Learning Site. It is these sort of studies
that will lead to the initial benefits the project brings to farmers. Furthermore, adaptive
on-farm research is also cutting edge. The process of empowering small-scale farmers to
better understand and respond to emerging constraints is not well understood and is an
essential part of the new paradigm described within the FARA proposal (Section 1.3).
On the long-term perspective, competitive productivity can best be achieved through genetic
breeding for control of pest and disease disorders as well as better agronomic traits like early
maturity. The Validation Team recommends that biotechnology aided research is an
appropriate entry point for producing more food if it is employed to supplement other
research and management approaches in producing clean planting materials, engineering
disease resistant materials, shortening breeding cycles and in the biological control of
livestock diseases, among its other applications.
7.2 Hillside and wetland husbandry
Soil erosion is widely perceived to be a major problem in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site
and nearly all the stakeholders visited highlighted erosion as the major cause of land
degradation and a major development challenge. There is some evidence of successful
implementation of soil and water conservation measures in the area, but that of failure in a
wide range of settings is quite prominent. The first question would be to ask why this is so.
Evidence of land husbandry success from Machakos in Kenya, also with a high population
59
density and land scarcity, suggests that improved access to the growing market of Nairobi
and to information through informal networks and formal extension service encouraged
farmers to invest in agricultural transformation and consequently try out a range of land
conservation measures (Tiffen et al, 1994). Two approaches to hillside conservation in the
PLS are proposed. The first is to present opportunities to farmers for transiting from annual
crops to perennial high value crop enterprises that could allow construction of short terraces
on the steep and sometimes stony hillsides, minimize tillage and offer greater protection
through canopy cover. Some crops like macadamia and apples (already introduced in some
areas) are proposed in Table 4 with potential areas of research support needed for their
introduction. The second approach is to transform the numerous hedges used as boundary
delineations or as bund support into low-cost but multi-purpose vegetation barriers that add
value to the soil e.g. through biological nitrogen fixation, and have potential to be livestock
fodder in crop/livestock integration systems. We recognize that research is needed to
establish the local environmental conditions and economic factors so that these are not
construed as being prescriptions. This entry point is based on the concept that it is only
high value enterprises on fragile lands that may lead to construction of expensive
conservation structures.
The functions of wetlands are varied and include water storage, nutrient cycling, particulate
removal, maintenance of plant and animal communities, water filtration and groundwater
recharge. They reduce damage from flooding, improve water quality and enhance habitat for
fish and wildlife. Policies of the countries hosting the PLS recognize the importance of
conserving the ecological integrity of the wetlands but in the face of serious demographic
pressure. Maintaining these functions and values presents a challenge for science to derive
strategies for incorporating wetlands management in farming, grazing and fishing that must
also serve to conserve the ecosystem, biodiversity and sustainable productivity. We propose
this entry point based on the principal that in areas where demographic pressure is such
that wetlands have to be utilized, it is essential that research generates sufficient
information and management technologies for their utilization only up to their ecological
resilience levels. It is considered that IAR4D operating at watershed level represents an
important opportunity for addressing issues in innovative ways by expanding the range of
social and environmental benefits from isolated interventions.
7.3 Viable buffer zones
Buffer zone and park management is one area where the three countries hosting the pilot
learning site appear to be working very closely. The intention is to reduce the damage to
cropland by wildlife and also allow inhabitants adjacent to nature reserves limited rights to
the periphery of natural resources in return for honouring principles that are designed to
protect those reserves and biodiversity therein. A mixture of ―hard egde‖ , ―buffer strip‖ and
―buffer zone‖ approaches are presently in play around the different nature reserves in the
area. The number of tourists visiting the area to support neighbouring residents through
employment and small business opportunities related to environmental protection and
awareness is not yet sufficient. A unique area for research around park edges is to develop
market-oriented farm enterprises that deter wildlife while securing improved livelihoods for
the communities around the parks. An example is the domestication and commercialisation
of beneficial insect, plant and fungal species to decrease the effect misuse on biodiversity and
increase the income of people living around protected areas. The process of domestication is
largely a research issue that involves several scientific disciplines. A further area of policy
60
and social research is to develop mechanisms for adaptive management and alternative
conflict management systems
7.4 Diversifying Agro-enterprises and expanding markets for wealth creation
The small landholdings in the PLS limit farm level capacity to produce large volumes of
staple crops such as maize, banana and cassava which have domestic and regional markets.
At the same time, the highland agro-ecology places farmers in the PLS at an advantage in
intensifying production and diversifying into newer, high value products that have growing
domestic, urban and international markets (Table 3). The VT recommends action research
to identify market opportunities and demand for different products and to determine what
strategies will benefit different categories of farmers.
Market and value chain analyses are required to clearly delineate markets and demand
for existing and new products, and to develop strategies for promoting efficient market
institutional innovations that are needed to support the transition from semi-subsistence
production to product development and diversification into higher value agricultural products
and markets. These include evaluating different models of producers' and entrepreneur
organization, microfinance, market information systems, business development services,
input marketing, extension advice, rural infrastructure and policy options that will support the
development of sustainable and integrated agroenterprises. This entry point will integrate a
number of research hypotheses, namely the Market Access, Friendly Farm, and the Buffer
Advantage Hypotheses.
7.5. Building Knowledge Societies
Action research on mechanisms and processes for institutionalizing IAR4D, facilitating
organizational innovation and mobilizing multi-stakeholder learning teams will be an
important component of the SSA CP. While farmers' organizations are increasingly becoming
an important stakeholder group in agricultural research and development, there is limited
systematic research into their dynamics, composition, performance and effectiveness. Yet, such
analysis is critical to building more effective ways of organizing and working with farmers'
groups, building their capacity to innovate, experiment and scale up successful
agroenterprises. Empowering farmers' organizations is an essential feature of any programme
that addresses poverty, marketing and NRM issues. One key hypothesis guiding IAR4D is that
investments in strengthening social capital and farmers' organizations will lead to pro- poor
sustainable market institutional innovations and improvement in natural resources. This entry
point provides numerous opportunities for testing four related hypotheses: the Farmer
Association , Community Leverage , Market Access, and Partnership Synergy Hypothesis. This
entry point is based on the premise that the success of research and agroenterprise
development efforts will be highly dependent on the development and strengthening of
quality partnerships with research, development organizations, farmers' associations, market
chain actors, private business sector, and government agencies.
Strengthening partnerships requires increased capacity for information and knowledge sharing
amongst different stakeholder groups. It is recommended that compilation and synthesis of
available information would form the background for identifying gaps in the characterisation
of the Pilot Learning Site required for determining the development domains for technologies
and products. It is expected that research teams other knowledge disseminators will clearly
outline their communication strategy that allow to translate
61
complex research findings into simple tools and products that can improve stakeholders'
decision-making, and scaling within and outside the PLS.
7.6 Tailoring Policies
Idachaba (2001) observed that policy analysis is the easier part, "the much more difficult and
rather murkier part is to get the policy implemented and adopted by users‖ Indeed, there are
several policy frameworks, institutions and structures that have been developed and are
implemented with varying degrees of success in the PLS. The most contentious is that of
consolidation of land and farm operations into more productive units. The VT recommends
action research into policy recommendations with support mechanisms, capacities, and tools
for their implementation. This entry point addresses the Community Leverage hypothesis
and requires policy action research to analyse policy constraints and incentives for uptake and
scaling up of different policies and community byelaws within and outside the PLS.
62
8. Refined Hypotheses and Research Questions
8.1 The Farmer Association Hypothesis.
The original hypothesis states that ‗Strong producer organizations have increased bargaining
power and ability to collectively market produce and thus increase returns (income) to land
and labor”. This hypothesis was revised slightly into:
H1: Farmer Association Hypothesis. Stronger farmer associations have increased
bargaining power and the ability to influence markets and thus increase members’ returns to
investment, land and labor.
Related working hypotheses
H1.1 Groups in transition hypothesis. Local self-help groups that form to better access
information and new farming technologies are too small to conduct marketing
operations and must amalgamate with other similar organizations to achieve sufficient
economy of scale.
H1.2 Risk of capture hypothesis. The greatest threat to the growth of farmer associations
in the process of expanding their services to members is ―capture by member elites‖
but clear understanding of members‘ rights, transparent business operations and
regular change in elected officers can overcome this threat.
H1.3 Inner strength hypothesis. Farmer associations that are formed by outside influences
are less resilient than those resulting from spontaneous common needs.
H1.4 Association focus hypothesis. The limited resources of agricultural extension are
best focused upon farmer associations rather than the general farming population
because the farming associations can offer coordination services and greater peer
support
Related research questions
1. Are smallholder farm organizations well positioned to serve not only as distributors of
information to members, but also as the focus for the intersection of new technologies and
expanded market opportunities?
2. What is the size required for an association of smallholder farmers to operate in a self-
sufficient manner while providing a full range of agricultural services, which services
should be offered and what, and how, should those members be charged for those
services?
3. How may empowering farmer associations best be incorporated into the adaptive
research process?
4. What is the role of smallholder farmer associations in expanding input use by their
members, which types of inputs are best traded through these organizations and how
much savings may be passed to members who purchase these materials?
5. What conditions and facilitation processes are required to enhance community based
enterprises?
63
8.2 and 8.3 The Market Access and Friendly Farm Hypotheses
The original hypothesis states that ―Investments to sustain and maintain the natural resource
base are more sustainable when they are linked to market-oriented production or when there
are financial incentives for conserving natural resources and biodiversity.‖
This hypothesis was separated into two hypotheses relating to market access and resource
conservation because the original hypothesis was considered too vague. The following two
hypotheses are sufficiently specific to serve as working hypotheses as well.
H2: Market access hypothesis. Improved access to markets by smallholder farmers
accelerates incentives for adoption of improved technologies and investments in natural
resource management.
Related research questions
1. Which new farm enterprises and markets permit farmers to improve their livelihood
without depleting natural resources?
2. Which combination of farm enterprises and value-added activities allow food insecure
households to escape poverty and enter new markets and how much land is required
for them to do so?
3. Under what conditions does market orientation lead to increased investment in NRM?
H3: Farm investment hypothesis. Greater reliance upon purchased inputs and new farm
enterprises by smallholder farmers reduce the rate of resource depletion resulting from their
farming operations which in turn protects the natural environment and fosters biodiversity.
Related working hypothesis:
H3.1. The Best Field Fix Hypothesis. Productivity and profitability of crop and livestock
enterprises can be rapidly improved through a combination of adaptive, iterative problem
solving research and biotechnology applied to new problems.
64
Related research question
1. Do more diverse farm enterprises enhance farm biodiversity and ease pressure upon nature
flora and fauna and if so which enterprises foster biodiversity most?
8.4 The Buffer Advantage Hypothesis
The original hypothesis states that “Increased livelihood options linked to markets including
joint management for buffer zone inhabitants will decrease pressure on conservation areas
and biodiversity and increase returns to land and labor.” This hypothesis does not take into
account that granting greater access into national parks or surrounding buffer zones may
compromise the natural environment, an opinion was voiced by numerous park authorities
and conservationists, that serves as the basis of the Hard Edge policies presently in effect.
The hypothesis was revised to state:
H4: The buffer advantage hypothesis. Access to buffer zones separating natural and
agricultural landscapes by neighboring inhabitants permits participation in specialized
enterprises that compliment farming without compromising the adjacent natural reserve.
Related working hypotheses
H4.1 Soft footprint hypothesis. Removing deadfall and non-timber forest products has no
significant effect upon the forest biomass and biodiversity but removing live branches
changes forest composition by providing greater opportunities to secondary and exotic
species.
H4.2 Fencing hypothesis. Fencing boundaries between farms and adjacent natural
reserves is feasible only when large mammals, such as elephants, buffalos and hippos,
regularly destroy crops but is much more expensive and less effective than
precautionary culling of rogue animals.
H4.3 Transitional livelihood hypothesis. The transition from liability to protector of
adjacent natural reserves requires that buffer zone inhabitants receive specialized
training, short-term financial incentives and longer-term market and policy support
and, if any of these components are lacking then the household resumes practices that
compromise the adjacent conservation areas.
H4.4 Hard edge hypothesis. Permitting access and limited use of forest resources within
conservation areas to neighboring inhabitants compromises the integrity of the natural
ecosystem and its biodiversity, is too difficult to supervise and results in overly
distorted indirect compensation.
Related research questions
1. What is the potential of eco-tourism within the Kivu PLS to support alternative livelihood
activities within buffer zones, what are those livelihood options and how many eco-
tourists are required to support one household engaged in those activities?
65
2. What set of principles are required among buffer zone inhabitants to protect the adjacent
natural ecosystem, how shall they be rewarded for upholding those principles and to how
wide an area surrounding the nature reserve should those principles apply?
3. What penalties should be imposed upon those who violate buffer zone principles and how
shall they be enforced?
8.5 The Partnership Synergy Hypothesis.
The original hypothesis states that “Investment in partnership arrangements that integrate
research and development expertise and perspectives will achieve greater impact through
scaling out islands of success”. Concerns were raised over this hypothesis because the form
of investment is vague and it is somewhat tautological (e.g. stronger partners achieving
greater impacts). Also, the phrase ―scaling out islands of success‖ was challenged because it
does not recognize niche advantage. Nonetheless, the importance of the hypothesis in
institutional building and its relationship to expanding relevant expertise was recognized and a
radically improved restatement was not developed. The hypothesis was therefore slightly
modified to state that:
H5: Partnership Synergy Hypothesis. Investment in partnership arrangements that
integrate research and development expertise and perspectives assists partners to better
understand, initiate and replicate local “success stories”.
Related research questions
1. What partnerships are required to support transitions to market oriented agriculture and
research?
2. To what extent do ―islands of success‖ represent specialized niches offering agro-
ecological, socio-economic advantages and how do these conditions and information
about them influence the ability to expand or replicate their success?
3. What is the cost and benefit of different partnership arrangements?
4. What approaches are more effective in forging public-private partnerships?
8.6 The Armed with Knowledge Hypothesis
The original hypothesis states that “Innovative information organization and sharing systems
will enhance uptake of technologies and improve decision making”. While this hypothesis
appears concise in targeting uptake and decision making, the phrase “innovative information
organization and sharing systems” appears awkward (at least for those not well versed in
information systems). Furthermore, it seems to embrace innovation for its own sake rather
than the content of the information and its understanding by various stakeholders. The
hypothesis was therefore restated as:
H6: Armed with knowledge hypothesis. More responsive and interactive information
sharing is required to facilitate awareness and adoption of useful agricultural and NRM
technologies but this information often requires processing before it is useful for decision
making.
Related working hypotheses
66
H6.1 Tools not talk hypothesis. Technical information alone is unable to effect change in
farming practices and agribusiness opportunities but must be accompanied by the
necessary tools and products that capture and operationalize that information.
H6.2 Problem-solving hypothesis. Agricultural technologies designed along strict
ideological principles achieve less impact, despite their informational advantages,
than those resulting from iterative, pragmatic problem-solving but documenting and
replicating that success is more difficult.
H6.3 Keep it simple hypothesis. Greater impacts are achieved at the grassroots level from
translating simplified information into local languages than providing complex
information in less understood languages
H6.4 The information pathway hypothesis. More complex technical information is best
distributed through electronic format, simplified information is best published in
newspaper or aired through broadcast media and simple extension messages are best
distributed as written materials.
Related research questions
1. What forms of information that accompany pioneering agricultural technologies and
new products are required and how are they best distributed?
2. How can farmer information become transformed to make it more understandable to
agricultural specialists engaged in problem solving and, just as importantly, vice
versa?
3. How can environmentally and socially responsible actions, such as reforestation, soil
conservation and watershed quality protection, be better explained to local
communities and reconciled with their routine land management operations and
household activities?
8.7. The Community Leverage Hypothesis
The original hypothesis states that ―Strengthened local governance through improved
community facilitation improves ability to influence development policy and advocate for
support to local marketing and natural resource management initiatives”. This appears to be a
―feel good‖ hypothesis stating that if outside influences form or reinforce community
groups, then local government will become more responsive to farmers‘ and conservations‘
needs. Everyone asked agrees that this is a valid hypothesis and indeed hopes that this is the
case, but some questioned whether it is too passive from the community mobilization
perspective as credit for change appears to be awarded to the facilitators rather than the
community itself. The hypothesis could be restated in a manner that calls attention to
community collective action as:
H7: Community Leverage Hypothesis. Stakeholder empowerment and its resulting
collective action encourage local government to develop more responsive policies toward
agribusiness, land tenure and natural resource management.
The original and restated hypotheses, and their related working hypotheses and research
questions prompted lively debate among team members, some of whom asserted that a topic
alluding to perennial poor governance is outside of the Validation Team‘s mandate. Others
responded that our focus upon ―business unusual‖ and the ongoing spirit of community
reconciliation permit such speculation. Keeping in mind that the team lacks politicians, we
offer the following working hypotheses and related research questions.
67
Related working hypotheses
H7.1 Business unusual hypothesis. Community groups forming with set agendas are less
able to positively influence local government than are those arising from and
operating within flexible economic and social goals.
Related research question
1. What mechanisms of stakeholder empowerment best lead to collective actions that
result in more responsive and transparent local governance?
2. How do land tenure and other agricultural policies impact smaller and weaker
communities, to what extent does these lead to conflicts and what alternative
collective actions permit these communities to receive fairer treatment?
9. Assembling Research Teams
The VT proposes a vertical integration within each experimental site, and horizontal
partnerships across countries. Within each country, the major institutions and individual
stakeholders along the resource-to-consumption and policy continuum should be identified
and encouraged to participate in research for development teams. These should include
national agricultural research institutes, government extension services, non-governmental
organizations, civil society organizations, farmers organizations, traders, transporters,
processors, exporters, private business sector, government departments, and international
research centres. Across countries, partnerships between teams and institutions should be
established. For example, agricultural universities in Uganda could form interdisciplinary
teams with other Universities in DR Congo or Rwanda to address common problems or
different complementary aspects of the same problem in order to increase synergies following
the principles of IAR4D. Involving young scientists and professionals and building their
capacity should be an important consideration in forming teams. The SSA CP and lead
institution should provide support for forming horizontal teams, team building and planning
research agenda with the full participation of key stakeholders.
The Pilot Learning Teams should identify and select research themes and specific locations
for conducting research in an integrated holistic system approach, based on biophysical and
socioeconomic characteristics. It will be important to start with locations where teams can
build on, add value to, and take advantage of existing institutions and capacities (human,
material, and social) in order to achieve and demonstrate impacts. The potential for scaling
out/up within the pilot learning site and beyond should be one of the important criteria for site
selection. This should not however exclude ―niche‖ advantage for some site specific
opportunities.
68
10. The Result Framework for Research Impacts
The long-term vision of the Kivu Pilot Learning Site is to contribute to poverty elimination in
Sub-Saharan Africa. This vision corresponds to the Millennium Development Goals of
reducing poverty and hunger, to which both FARA, ASARECA, the SSA CP, the CGIAR
Centres and the three countries are fully committed. The long term impact of the Lake Kivu
Pilot Learning Site is to improve food security, income, livelihoods and environmental
sustainability in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site. The VT suggests four outcomes that must
be combined together to generate impacts. These are:
1. Increased utilization of demand driven technologies to improve agricultural
productivity and conserve natural resources;
2. Diversified enterprise options and improved market access;
3. Enhanced organizational capacity of stakeholders for impact oriented research, and
4. Enhanced decision-making capacity of different stakeholders to influence policy
formulation and implementation.
Although these outcomes are shown separately for easy of presentation, it is important to
understand that these outcomes must be integrated and combined together to generate
impacts. Research proposals and pilot learning teams must clearly show how they can
produce research outputs and conduct innovative research and development activities to
generate these development outcomes.
69
Table 9 below proposes some outputs that must be combined together to generate the four
outcomes. The set of activities needed to deliver these outputs are shown in Table 10.
Table 9: The Result Framework for achieving Research Impacts
Outputs that must be combined together
to produce outcomes (2-3 years) Outcomes that must be
combined together to
generate impacts (3-5 years)
Impacts that must
be achieved to
reach the long- term impact (5-10 years)
Long term
Impact
(15 years)
1.1. Technological innovations for increasing productivity and
competitiveness of crop and livestock
systems developed, tested and adopted by
farmers.
1. Increased utilization of
demand driven technologies
to improve agricultural
productivity and conserve
natural resources
Improve food
security, income,
environmental
sustainability and
livelihoods of small
holder farmers in the LK PLS
Contributing
to poverty
elimination in
Sub-Saharan
Africa
1.2. Integrated natural resource
management strategies and innovations
developed and implemented. 1.3. Technologies for intensifying
integrated crop-livestock systems tested
and adapted by farmers. 2.1. Increased capacities of farmers‘
organizations and entrepreneurs to access
better market opportunities.
2. Diversified enterprise
options and improved
market access
2.2. Technologies for value addition and
diversification of agricultural products
developed and promoted. 2.3. Strategies and approaches for market access for staples and high value products. 3.1. Methodologies and approaches for
institutionalizing market responsive
And client oriented research promoted
3. Organizational capacity
of stakeholders for impact
oriented research enhanced
3.2. Methodologies and materials for
building capacity of Pilot Learning Teams
in impact oriented research developed and utilized by stakeholder groups. 3.4. Tools and products for management
and sharing of knowledge and information to improve decision making enhanced. 4.1. Increased capacity for analysis
formulation and implementation of
enabling agricultural and trade policies.
4. Decision-making
capacity for agricultural
policy analysis, formulation
and implementation
enhanced
4.2. Platforms and mechanisms for policy
advocacy and dialogue established.
11. Way forward
The Validation Team presents some observations that were made by the stakeholders during
consultations with the Validation Team, which we recommend should be considered by
management of the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site. First, we support the proposal from the
Stakeholder Consultation in the DR Congo that the site be extended by 80 km to the south to
include Masisi and northern Lake Kivu. The reasons for this proposal are given in Appendix
3. Second is the expressed need for a feedback of our validation exercise from all the
70
stakeholders we consulted with. We recommend that the Lead Institution devises a
mechanism to ensure that stakeholders who participated in the validation exercise get
feedback on the outcome. The addresses of the various stakeholders contained within this
report form an entry point for initiating contacts in preparation for team formation. Lastly,
we recommend that the LI should facilitate a participatory process for consolidating the
proposed logical framework.
71
12. Acknowledgements The Validation Team received invaluable contributions from many stakeholders at short
notice. Sometimes the visits were impromptu, meeting field officers without notice and
discussing with many farmers as they worked their fields. The stakeholders are listed in
Appendix 2, but we may have missed listing some for which we apologise. We are most
grateful for the openness with which the information we sought was given. We thank our
different institutions (NARO, ISAR, TSBF, Makerere University, FORMAT and CIAT) for
allowing us to conduct this mission.
We acknowledge the constructive debate with the European Union Review Mission
members, and the participating organizations consequent upon our presentation of the
preliminary report. It helped us better target our report towards the needs of the Challenge
Programme. We express our thanks to CIAT, and especially Dr Robin Buruchara and Ms
Sifah Murhonda for the excellent facilitation we were afforded in terms of transport,
arranging accommodation and providing the necessary facilities as needed. This ensured no
disruption as we executed our task.
72
13. Bibliography
African Development Bank 2004. African Development Report, Africa in the global trading
System and Economic and social statistics of Africa. Published by the Oxford
University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX 2 6DP . (website:
www.afdb.org) AHI (African Highlands Initiative) (1997). ―Phase II work plan and budget 1998-2000‖. Nairobi:
International Centre for Research Agroforestry.
Amjadi, A., U. Reincke and A. J. Yeats 1996. Did external barriers cause the marginalisation
of sub-Saharan Africa in the world trade? World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper No. 1586. Washington D. C.: World Bank.
Anon. (2002). The 1991 Population and Housing Census: Analytical Report Volume 1:
Demographic Characteristics. Statistics Department, Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning, Entebbe, Uganda.
ASARECA, 2005: ASARECA strategic plan 2005 – 2015. Fighting Poverty, Reducing
Hunger and Enhancing Resources through Regional Collective Action in
Agricultural Research for Development Chapter 5; the state of National
Agricultural Research Systems. ASARECA Secretariat, Entebbe, Uganda
Bagoora, F.D.K. 1990. Soil erosion and mass wasting risk in the highland area of Uganda.
In: Messerhirwa, B. and Hurni, H. (eds) Africa Mountains and Highlands,
Problems and Perspectives. African Mountains Association, Walsmorth Press,
USA.
Bebbington, A. J., D. Merill-Sands, and J. Ferrington (1994). ―Farmer and community
organizations in agricultural and extension: functions, impacts and questions‖.
Agricultural Administration Research and Extension Network paper 47.
London, ODI.
Bekunda M. and Manzi, G. 2003. Use of the partial nutrient budget as an indicator of
nutrient depletion in the highlands of southwestern Uganda. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 67:187-195.
Bygott, D. and Hanby, J. 1998. A Guidebook to Mgahinga Gorilla National Park and Bwindi
Impenetrable National Park. Uganda Wildlife Authority. 96 pp.
Collinson, C., K. Wanda, A. Muganga, and R.S.B.Ferris. 2000. Cassava marketing in
Uganda: constraints and opportunities for growth and development: Supply chain
evaluation. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)/ Natural
Resources Institute (NRI). March 2000
Daane. J, 2003: Paper presented to the workshop on Mobilising partnerships for capacity
building in IAR4D held at Wageningen, Netherlands, November 2003.
FARA Secretariat. 2004. Building Sustainable Livelihoods through Integrated Agricultural
Development. Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme Proposal, Vol. 1.
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra, Ghana. 74 pp.
Ferris, R. S. B., J. Tuyisenge, M. Rucibigango, D. Mukankubana, C. Ngaboyisonga, C.
Gatarayiha, L. Butare, C. Kanyange, C. Uwantege, B. Kagiraneza, and K.
Wanda. 2002a. Bean sub-sector market survey in Rwanda. ATDT-
CIAT/ISAR/IITA-FOODNET Monograph. 77pp.
Ferris, R.S.B., G.Okoboi,, C.Crissman, P.Ewell, and B.Lemaga. 2002b. Performance and
growth prospects of Irish potatoes as a component for the development of
73
strategic exports in Uganda. Prepared by IITA-
FOODNET,CIP,PRAPACE,CGIAR, and ASARECA. February 2002
Fonds International pour le Developpement Agricole 2003. La Republique Democratique du
Congo. Expose des Options et Strategies d‘ Intervnetions (COSOP). Gabre-Madhin, E and Haggblade, S. 2004. Successes in African Agriculture: Results of an Expert
Survey. World Development 32(5) 745-766
GFAR (Global Forum on Agricultural Research) 2002. Strengthening the Participation of Farmers‘
Organisations and of NGOs in Global Agricultural Research for Development (ARD)
Rome, February 2002
Hawkins, R. 2005: What is IAR4D? In: Learning together for change in Integrated
Agricultural Research for Development: experiences in Uganda, a report of the
NARO/MAK/ICRA partnership. NARO Secretariat, Entebbe, Uganda. Idachaba, F. 2001. Agricultural policy process in Africa: Role of policy analysts. ECAPAPA
Monograph Series 2. Entebbe: Eastern and Central Africa Programme on Agricultural
Policy Analysis.
Jagwe, J.N., G. Okoboi, P. Hakizimana, J. Tuyisinge, and M. Rucibigango. 2003. Marketing
survey of the Rice sub-sector in Rwanda. ATDT-CIAT/ISAR/IITA-FOODNET
Monograph. 55pp.
MAAIF, 2003: National Agricultural research Policy, Ministry of Agriculture animal industry
and Fisheries. MAAIF, Entebbe, Uganda.
Martins W.S. 1945. Notes on soils and soil conservation for the Kigezi District. Department
of Agriculture, Uganda. 6 p.
Mbwika, J. M. 2003. Sesame market study – Uganda Country Report. Vol. IV Catholic
Catholic Relief services – Eastern Africa, and Technoserve – Kenya.
FEBRUARY 2003. 40pp.
NARO, 2004: Revised Research Strategy 2003 - 2010: Addressing the challenges of poverty
eradication and sustainable livelihoods. NARO Secretariat, Entebbe, Uganda.
Omamo, S. W; Babu, S. and Temu, A. 2005. The future of smallholder Agriculture in
Eastern Africa. The roles of States, Markets, and Civil Society. IFPRI Eastern
Africa Food Policy Network. Ostrom E, 1998. The institutional analysis and development approach. In Designing institutions and
environmental and resource management. E. T. Loehman and D.M Kilgour, eds.
Chelthenam, UK, Edward Elgar publishing pp. 68-90
Oyejide, T. A. 1993. Effects of trade and macroeconomic policies on African agriculture.
Chapter 12 in R. M. Bautista and A. Valdes (eds) . The Bias against agriculture :
Trade and macroeconomic policies in developing countries. San Farancisco:
ICEG/IFPRI, ICS Press. Pali, P. 2005.
Pender, J.; P. Jagger, E. Nkonya and D. Sserunkuma. 2001. Development pathways and land
Management in Uganda: Causes and Implications. Environment and Production
Technology Division Discussion Paper no 49. Washington DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute. Pretty, J. (2003). ―Social capital and the collective management of resources‖. Science 32: 1912-1914
Republic of Rwanda. 2003. Rwanda Development Indicators. Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning. 6th
Edition. August 2003 Sanginga, P., Kamugisha, R., Martin, A., Kakuru, A. and Stroud, A. 2004. Facilitating Participatory
Processes for Policy Change in Natural Resource Management: Lessons from the
Highlands of Southwestern Uganda. U. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9 (1): 958-970
Sanginga, P.; Chitsike, C; Best, R; Delve, R; Kaaria, S.; Kirkby, R. (2004)a. Linking Smallholder
Farmers to Markets: An approach for empowering mountain communities to identify
market opportunities and develop rural agroenterprises Mountain Research and
Development, Vol 24 (4): 288-291
74
Siriri D. 1998. Characterization of the Spatial Variations in Soil Properties and Crop Yields
across Terrace Benches in Kabale. MSc. thesis, Department of Soil Science,
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 96 p. Uphoff, N., and C. M. Mijayaratna (2000). ―Demonstrated benefits of social capital: The productivity
of farmers‘ organizations in Gal Oya, Srilanka‖. World Development 28(11): 1875-
1840
75
13. Appendices
Appendix 1. Validation Team composition and contact details
Dr. Mateete Bekunda Professor of Soil Science and Dean, Faculty of Agriculture,
(Chairman) Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Tel. +256-41-542277; mob. +256-77-430752
Email. [email protected]
Elysee Mudwanga Bishako President, Groupe Agro-Pastoral du Kivu ―GAP-Kivu.
Av. P.E. Lumumba, Boite Postale 1240 Bukavu, R D Congo
Tel: +243 998623960 Email: [email protected]
Ms Elize Lundall-Magnuson Facilitation and Mentoring Services Consortium - FARA
Programme Manager – Beekeeping for Poverty Relief
Agricultural Research Council, Private Bag X134,
Queenswood, Pretoria, South Africa. Tel +27 12 356 9800,
Fax +27 12 329 3278, Cel: +27 82 379 1093 Email:
[email protected] or [email protected]
Dr. Kehinde Makinde Senior Economist, Institut des Sciences Agronomique du
Rwanda (ISAR), Rubona, BP 138, Butare, Rwanda. Tel :250-
08563362 ; Email : [email protected]
Dr. Peter Okoth Project Information Manager, Tropical Soil Biology and
Fertility (TSBF) Institute of the International Centre for
Tropical Agriculture, P.O. Box 30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Telephone 254-20-7224775. Email: [email protected]
Dr. Pascal Sanginga Senior Research Fellow, Rural Innovation Institute of CIAT
P.O. Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda. Tel: +256 (41) 567670
Tel: +256 (41) 567670 . E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Emily Twinamasiko Senior Research Officer, Adaptive Research, IAR4D Co-
ordinator, NARO, Box, 295, Entebbe, Tel. 256-41-320178, 256-
77-488385, E-mail; [email protected], Uganda
Dr. Paul L. Woomer Technical Advisor, FORUM for Organic Resource
Management and Agricultural Resources (FORMAT), P.O.
Box 79, The Village Market, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephome:
254-20-7122337. Email: [email protected]
76
Appendix 1 LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS AND CONTACTS IN THE PLS
.
DR CONGO
Email Telphone
Mbakulihare Etienne Cooridnateur FOPAC, Federation des Organisations des Producteurs Agricoles du
Congo
Dr. Vet. Katunga Musale Coordinateur CIALCA, Consortium for
Improvement of Agriculture and
Livelihoods in Central Africa
Kambale Muhasa Coordinateur, CEDRU, Centre pour le
Developpement Rural de Rutshuru
Ir. Lunze Lubanga Directeur, INERA, Institut National
D'Etudes et Recherche Agronomique
Ir. Mapatano Sylvain Coordinateur DIOBASS Plateforme
DIOBASS
[email protected] 243 998 623440
[email protected] 243 998 669793
[email protected] 243 810 394282
[email protected] 243 810605996
[email protected] 243 815217572
Bwabwa Hakiza Maheshe DIOBASS Plateforme DIOBASS, Goma [email protected] 243 997 731964
Prof. Walangululu, Masamba
Jean
Dean, Facultes des Sceinces
Agronomiques, Universite Catholique de
Bukavu
[email protected] 243 813 176 063
Prof. Bitijula Mahimba Martin Directeur General, Institut Superieur de
Developpement Rural [email protected] 243 998 624 129
Prof. Katanga Kababi Joseph Professor, Universite des Grands Lacs [email protected]
Prof. Gakuru Semalumu Recteur, Universite des Grands Lacs [email protected] 243 998 610 859
Flori Mbolela FAO [email protected] 243 819 601 122
Mbula Deo Conservateur Principal, Institut Congolais
pour la Conservation de la Nature, ICCN
[email protected] 243 808 557191
Kajuga Binyeri Directeur Provincial, Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la
Nature, ICCN
Alex Dzifanu Nyarko-Badohu, FAO, Coordinateur Adjoint des Operations
Agricoles
Uwingeri Prosper Conservateur Adjoint, Parc National des
Volcans, Office Rwandais du Tourism et
des Parcs Nationaux
KwamiDzifanu.Nyarkoba 243 818998490
[email protected] 250 08535949
Kwizera Janvier Community Conservation Warden [email protected] 250 088 37389
Dr. Agnes Matilda Kalibata Coordinator, Rural Sector Support Project,
MINAGI-World Bank
Bizima Anania Joseph Senior Agronomist, Rural Sector Support
Project, MINAGI-World Bank
[email protected] 250 08302180
[email protected] 250 08491833
UGANDA
Kakuru Adison Chairman, Kabale District Local
Government
Sebaduka Hannington CARE, Kabale 077 459445
Mutabazi, Sunday District Production Officer, Kabale District 077 468207
Kyasimire Clare Africa Highlands Initiative [email protected] 077 829442
Turyamureeba Gard National Agricultural Research
Organization
Tindyebawa Justice District Information Officer, Kabale
District
077 448080
077 4592617
Kazimbazi James District Agricultural Officer, Kabale Local Government 077 492617
Kabakiraho Bahuunde District Veterinary officer 77524143
77
Beitwenda Evas Secretary for Production and Marketing 077 530223
Name Discipline Email Telephone
Dr. Mark Cyubahiro Bagabe
Dr. JonasNugabe Nutsabwa
Director General [email protected] +250-530145 +250-08304197
Director of Research [email protected] +250-530558 +250-08681041
Elie Rene Gasore Rice/Sorghum Research [email protected] +250-08875075
Prof. Jasper K. Imungi ATDT/ISAR [email protected] +250-08308386
Dr. Emile Ndejuru Head, Tech Transfer Unit [email protected] +250-08750136
Nyagahungu I. Postharvest Unit - -
Uwizerwa Mathilde Scientist [email protected] +250-08591608
Umunezero Olive Animal Production [email protected] +250-08459543
Uwimana Gaspard Animal Production [email protected] +250-08473440
Prof. Martin N. Shem Animal Production [email protected] +250-08556558
Prof. Noel Kanuya Animal Reproduction [email protected] +250-08556568
Prof. Fredrick Owino Forestry/Agroforestry [email protected] +250-08543559
Rushemuka Pascal Agroforestry [email protected] +250-08779808
Gashaka Gervan Cassava Research [email protected] +250-08419149
Hakizimana Patnee Rice Program [email protected] +250-08592191
Badege Peter TTU/Socio-economics [email protected] +250-08570741
Rukundo Placide Biotechnology Unit [email protected] +250-08745904
Dr. Jeremias G. Mowo Soil and water management
[email protected] +250-08552575
Jean Damascene Ndayambaje
Agroforestry [email protected] +250-08487721
Eugene G. Nsama Potato [email protected] +250-08406807
Leon Nabahungu Soil Scientist [email protected] +250-08406807
Dr. Michele Schilling Director, GIS Center, NUR, Butare
[email protected] +250-08562510
Wagoire William National Agricultural Research Organization
Kanzikwera Rogers National Agricultural Research Organization
Appendix 2. Key informants and interviews
Table X: List of Participants at Senior Stakeholders‘ Meeting
78
Congo
Masisi
80 km
Appendix 3. Senior Stakeholder Consultation in DR Congo
The stakeholder consultative meeting was held in Goma on 17 October and ttended by 19
participants (Table x). Further consultations were held with the FAO Representative in
charge of agricultural operations in Eastern DR Congo; the National Services of Agricultural
Statistics (SNSA), The Congo Institute of Nature Conservation (ICCN), the Compagnie
Africaine d‘Aviation (CAA), and three local NGOs (DIOBASS, PADA and APRONA). The
main objectives of the senior stakeholder consultative meeting were to brainstorm on a list of
critical entry points and opportunities for research and development. The meeting started
with a brief background on the SSA CP and the mission of the validation team. It is
important to note that some of the participants attended the Lake Kivu PLS launching
meeting in Kigali in April 2005, and therefore had advance knowledge of the SSA CP. The
first recommendation was to
extend the PLS by 50 km to the
south to include Masisi and
northern Lake Kivu. The same
issue was raised at the earlier
meeting in Kigali. The key reasons
offered for expanding the area
were:
1. The current area covered by the
PLS is dominated by the
Virunga National Parc which
occupies over 70% of the land
area. There are also some
industrial plantations within the
site, leaving only about 10-20%
Current PLS boundary Proposed DRC expansion
Congo
Masisi
80 km
to small scale farmers.
Expanding the site southward
will include areas that are
agriculturally important than
the Virunga Parkland.
Figure 11. An expansion of the PLS is proposed by
DR Congo stakeholders and endorsed by the
Verification Team.
2. This area has also considerable challenges and limiting factors that are also found in
many parts of DRC. Therefore results can found wider application for scaling out to
wider geographic, within DRC and in the PLS.
3. Although the site is named after Lake Kivu, the lake is not part of the site in DRC.
Expanding southward will include the lake, and therefore legitimize the title of ‖Lake
Kivu‖ PLS, and will run parallel to Rwanda side of the PLS.
4. Finally, this area is more accessible to scientists from both Bukavu and Goma, and may
be more secure than part of the current PLS.
The problems constraining agricultural development in the DR Congo are complex and have
been exacerbated by several years of political instability, poor governance, wars and armed
conflicts, as well as natural disasters. Some of these factors are structural such as poor
infrastructure (roads, transportation, electricity), fragmented and diminishing land sizes
(National park occupies over 50% of the PLS, and industrial plantations occupy about 25%),
79
bad governance and lack of coherent agricultural policies. Some of these constraints are
technical and are rather recent. These include outbreak of crop diseases that are threatening
key food crops such as banana, cassava, potatoes and beans. Most varieties of food crops
have degenerated, and there has not been any formal diffusion of improved varieties in the last
two decades or more. Although there are now several NGOs and farmers organizations, many
of these institutions are weak, and lack technical, human and financial capacity to provide
relevant services to farmers. Following both plenary and working group discussions, it was
agreed that research and development opportunities include:
1. Improving productivity of food crops. Banana and cassava are seriously threatened by
bacterial wilt, mosaic and viruses. These need scientific interventions and technologies, or
transfer of technologies from Uganda where these diseases have been well managed.
Another approach is to intensify the production of key staple food crops that have good
market demand (banana, cassava, beans, potatoes and vegetable crops). Other key
interventions will be to introduce more resistant varieties and improved technologies for
increasing productivity of key crops.
2. Examining crop-livestock interactions. This research will have significant impacts in
livestock production regions, but also could provide incentives for soil and water
conservation.. Particularly, in livestock, many organizations are introducing new breeds,
but there is no research support to guide restocking, no laboratory for control of animal
health
3. Improving marketing and commercialization of agricultural products. The current
prices that farmers are offered in the markets are very low and do not provide good
opportunity for increasing production. Farmers are not competitive and do not have
market intelligence. Most produce are sold immediately after harvest when prices are
very low in the markets. The fact that farmers are not organized into producers and
marketing associations, limit their bargaining power and ability to influence prices.
4. Agroprocessing and value addition. Processing of maize, sorghum and banana into
flour presents an opportunity for increasing profitability of food crops. Soybean is
gradually replacing beans in some areas. The crop could be further promoted if there were
processing opportunities. There are some success stories of farmers associations who are
able to process maize grain and banana into flour and therefore capture higher prices in
the market.
Strengthening research and development capacity: There are good scientists both at INERA,
Universities and some NGOs that have experience in the region, but need to be supported
(financially and with technologies) to better serve the PLS. There are also existing technologies
developed in DRC and through ASARECA networks and CG centres. FAO and other
international NGOs are currently using technologies and materials produced by INERA.
Strengthening farmers associations. The lack of coordination and synergy amongst different
farmers organizations and NGOs operating in the same area leads to duplication and confusion,
and limited impacts. Facilitating platforms for information sharing and coordination amongst
different players will achieve economies of scale and accelerate impacts. Most NGOs do not
have the required technical skills, knowledge and tools to
support farmers‘ organizations, and facilitate their transition into market economies.
Linking R&D partners within the PLS. The DRC stakeholders requested the VT to assist in
identifying and linking potential partners, and the Lead Institution to facilitate processes that
can help to develop joint proposals. The VT should also provide feedback and share copies
of their report.
80
Appendix 4. Senior Stakeholder Consultation in Rwanda
Two senior stakeholders meetings were held in Rwanda. The first consultation was held in
the ISAR Ruhengeri station on Tuesday October 18, 2005 involving ISAR researchers, and
the representatives of NGOs, Farmer organization and District Council. The second meeting,
attended by research managers and scientists from ISAR headquarters, was held on Friday 21
October 2005 at the Pirlot Hall of ISAR, Rubona (Table x). The objective of both
consultations was to obtain stakeholders inputs into the validation exercise. Opening the
Rubona meeting, the Director General of ISAR, Dr. Mark Bagabe, welcomed the Validation
Team to ISAR and provided a brief background to the ISAR scientists on the SSA-CP and its
activities to date. He emphasized that technologies can not survive if they are not owned by
farmers. Therefore, while research should drive the Lake Kivu PLS agenda, the research itself
must be both participatory and market-led to be relevant. Thereafter, Emily Twinmnasko
introduced the mission of the validation team and the expectations from the consultation. The
discussions were conducted in an open ended manner. The following section contains the
highlights from stakeholders‘ views on the major themes for the two consultations.
1. Adaptive research approaches are needed. The Rwanda part of the Lake Kivu PLS
was reported to be the most densely populated area in SSA. The land is considered fairly
fertile, however, there is a need to build capacity on conservation of natural resources.
Adaptive research is necessary to identify appropriate technologies for NRM. Major
crops are potato, beans, banana, and maize.
2. Eucalyptus replacement. Concerns about land shortages led to a controversial
discussion on the value of Eucalyptus. While the tree is favoured by farmers because of
its short growth cycle, coppicing ability, honey and fuel wood, it is also reputed to be a
nutrient miner. ISAR scientist indicated that the Rwandan Government has a plan to
replace Eucalyptus growing in fertile soils with high value traditional forest species such
as Mahogany through Biotechnology. More than 10 varieties are currently being
screened.
3. Strengthening farmer groups. The Farmer group representative indicated that farmers
are not consulted in technology generation. Partnership with the groups is currently at the
level of meetings. Farmer organization requires attention because of the high impact
nature of their activities.
4. Linking farmers to markets. The greatest challenge lies in the volatile markets. Prices
collapse at harvest to increase sharply two months later. There are opportunities for
exploiting niche markets given adequate information and a simplified credit arrangement
The example of mushrooms for neighboring hotels was cited. Farmers require
information support to enable them compete effectively in the domestic and global
markets alongside business orientation.
5. Adding value. Lake Kivu PLS should build commodity chains, particularly for the
purpose of value addition. Farmers get more from processing but are hindered by lack of
appropriate processing equipments. Farmers‘ Association established a processing plant
for passion fruit which is now moribund.
6. Expanding opportunities within Buffer Zones. The Lake Kivu PLS is expected to
transform the national parks into economic opportunities. For example, beekeeping is a
very important resource. Rwanda has a deficit of honey which can be met in the buffer
zone. It is important to consider high value crops for which there are good prospects in
the international markets. Furthermore, the direct and indirect benefits of eco-tourism
should be exploited for improved well-being.
81
7. Intensifying livestock research. It is essential to be focused on farmer objectives and
understand the entry points. Due to acute shortage of land in Rwanda, some farmers may
prefer zero grazing, while others opt for manure. There could still be others who will
prefer milk. Overgrazing was reported to be a serious issue in the highlands as livestock
feed is a big constraint..
8. Building research capacity. The need to strengthen ISAR‘s research capacity was
emphasized. There are pathological issues to be resolved particularly on potato (bacterial
wilt) and passion fruits (viruses) and ISAR has had no pathologist for many years. Most
of the orchards have been devastated.
9. Advance GIS capacities. The GIS Remote Sensing and Research Center in Butare
expressed interest in collaborating with Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site research to develop
site and regional databases and participate in data exchange programs.
82
Appendix 5. Senior Stakeholder Consultation in Kabale, Uganda
The meeting was held at White horse in Kabale and was attended by heads of units in the
district, representatives of non governmental organisations and coordinators of farmer
organisations. The objective of the meeting was to get views of key stakeholders on
development challenges and possible entry points for research and development. The
chairman introduced the concept of the SSA-CP and challenged the stakeholders to discuss
why science was not making much difference in eradicating poverty, what were the key
development challenges and suggestions for possible interventions. The discussions were
done in groups. Following is a summary of the issue that came up in the group discussions.
Marketing. Stakeholders emphasized the need to link production to market. This could be
done through value addition, improved infrastructure, provision of market information and
formation and formation of cooperatives and marketing associations. A major challenge to
marketing was that all farmers in the area planted and harvested at the same time, flooding
the market. This made it difficult to bargain for good prices.
Farmer groups. There are number of farmer groups linked together by proximity or common
products. Some are too small and need to merge into bigger associations. Concern was that
most farmer groups were not empowered enough to demand services. Two examples of
strong farmer groups were cited, the Bukinda and the Karambo farme groups. The Bukinda
group has been able to tap a zero grazing project and are now benefiting from manure and
milk. They have a system of re-investing into group and farm activities. They are also trying
biogas, natural resource management and malaria control. The Karambo group is involved in
natural resource conservation and producing potato seed. The group has a bank account and
tried to save money. The following suggestions came up in group discussions.
• Need to empowered to know what they need and to be able to demand for it
• Baseline data on Farmer groups to understand why the groups were formed and
what their legal statuses are. This may help in the formation of better groups
• How do formal and informal farmer groups compare, e.g., those formed by external
agents versus the ones that form spontaneously.
Partnerships. There is lack of linkages and synergies between programmes. Some
organisations are working together through some lose collaborative arrangements.
Natural resource management. Natural resource depletion especially soil erosion on hill
slopes was cited as one of the major problems. Two possible strategies for controlling natural
resource depletion were suggested. One was to control erosion on the hill slopes by using
what already exists; an example is using hedge rows on terraces using local shrubs or fodder
trees. The other is to apply market driven improvement strategy. This means an environment
friendly production system that at the same time produces marketable gods. An example is
growing of high value crops that require minimum tillage, like horticulture or other perennial
crops or the there keeping of livestock so that land is under pasture most of the time.
Information. Farmers do not get sufficient information. There is little information sharing and
lack of trans-institutional trust. Some organisations take others‘ information and present
83
it as their own, without acknowledging or giving credit to the source. This discourages
synergy. There is need to improve information management to facilitate lesson sharing.
Institutionalisation of information sharing mechanisms and tools should ensure that local
systems are part of the system. There is also need to encourage farmer libraries.
Horticulture. Farmers in Kabale are taking on growing of temperate fruits, especially apples.
Although the fruit has potential on the local market, sales are not yet smooth. The fruits are
failing to compete with the apples imported from South Africa due to size. This poses a
challenge for improving size to out-compete imported apples. There is also a possibility of
advocating for a policy to reduce imports. There is still a lot of research to be done before
apple growing becomes cost-effective.
Another issue that came up was the possibility of using old science to solve new problems.
Contribution of the district Chairman. The chairman emphasized the problem of land
fragmentation and natural resource depletion. He supported the strategy of minimum tillage
production.
Stakeholders requested for feedback when the validation exercise is finished. They said that
many researchers went to the district to get information but never return to share outcomes or
send copies of reports.
84
Appendice 7. SUMMARY ISSUES ARISING FROM STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS
Stakeholder Concerns Opportunities Linkages Capacity gaps NARO
Kachwekano ARDC
Poor linkages with NAADS.
Poor funding.
Farmers rarely come and look
for information.
Very difficult to know if farmers‘ concerns are actual concerns – farmer fatigue.
No market considerations
taken into account when
introducing technologies.
Misinformation – fertilizer
kill soils
Positioned within PLS; Strength in potato research,
linkages with other
NARO, Some
experience and
expertise for IAR4D
Technology packages
on some products,
nothing about
temperate fruits
Peas, sorghum and
small ruminants
Several NGO and
CBO, PREPACE,
Livestock research,
Inadequate personnel and facilities.
ISAR Headquarters
(Rubona) and
Ruhengeri Station
Lack of financial resources to implement technologies;
Sensitisation of farmers on
Nature Reserves; Lack of
cohesive farmer groups for
collective action; How to
exploit cultural groups for
technology development
process; Lack of information sharing mechanisms
ISAR LI; Ruhengeri within PLS; Strong
policy support
Butare University,
CIAT,
Critical Mass, NO IAR4D experience,
lack inter-disciplinary skills
INERA
Congo Lack of base line data,
Distance from PLS, Choice
and size of site takes non productive area, Young inexperienced scientists.
Destruction of research
facilities for livestock, limited
funding
International NGO‘s
getting research
results from INERA.
University of
Bukavu,
CIAT/IITA CYMMIT, CIP and ASARECA,
FAO and various
NGO‘s
Critical mass, young
untrained,
inexperienced scientists, Lack livestock scientists,
Only 2 between
research institute and
University, No experience in IAR4D
Farmer Federation:
UNFFE Lack of genuine partnerships, Information channels,
farmer training District farmers
associations Skills to empower
farmers and organize them for collective
action District farmers
Organisation:
Kisoro farmers‘ association
Lack of funding for planned
activities, limited market
opportunities, lack of good
seed, no clear link with
farmers
Farmer link extension
system can be used to
mobilize and train
farmers. Can be
coordinators for
inputs supply and
credit facilities, enterprise development
District
production
department, grass
root farmers
associations
Few technical
officers, Facilities for
information
collection, packaging
and dissemination
Kisoro Beekeepers
Association Extracting equipment not
adequate, bees killed by
pesticide spraying, cannot
supply enough for market,
Product
diversification; quality control;
disease control;
Varroa mite
monitoring
Shoprite, Royal
Supermarket
Farmer groups:
Karambo farmer
group, Kibumba farmers‘ group
Inability to enforce by-laws
due to limited local
government support. Lack of linkage to district NRM
Target audience for
empowerment
programmes, partners for innovation
CIAT,
AFRICARE,
NAADS, District production
Negotiation skills,
savings and credit
management, collective marketing,
85
Stakeholder Concerns Opportunities Linkages Capacity gaps policy. Imposing foreign
crops/programs on them and
they lose out when there is no
market. Exclusion from
service provision contracts
with NAADS, Lack of market
information, failure to
organize foe marketing,
exploitation by middlemen & agents
systems, Have by- laws that may be a
start for new policy in NRM
department, AHI information access, business skills
Private Sector: Processors (diary processing, fruit
products)
Lack of raw materials, poor infrastructure, failure of farmers to organize
themselves to supply raw
materials, pests and disease reducing fruit availability,
quality of raw materials,
especially milk; seasonal
fluctuation
Ready market, little competition, chance to participate in
production chain may
influence quality of products,
Farmers, milk traders
Quality standards, Partnership development (team
building)
Private sector:
Produce buyers Infrastructure
Advisory/Extension
services: NAADS Insufficient budget, Lack of
financing for farmers to take
up new technologies, lean
human resource at district
level
Involvement with
farmer
empowerment,
enterprise
development,
adaptive research
Research, farmer
groups Few staff, quality of
service providers
Advisory/Extension services: NGO
Congo
Inefficient markets for the farmers; some land tenure
systems – do not favour agricultural development
Lack of capacity from service
providers; lack of research support like new varieties,
quantity and quality of seed
and technologies; information
inaccuracy; inadequate processing facilities
Transition from relief to sustainable
development; platform for NGO
information sharing;
FAO, farmer groups, World
Food
Programme; 151
NGO‘s linked;
INERA; farmers associations;
CIAT; IITA;
ASARECA
networks
Interdisciplinary skills; business skills;
communication and
information
management skills;
Advisory/Extension
services: NGO
Uganda example
Africare
Too thin on the ground; research results not translated
in usable messages; groups are not empowered to seek
solutions and demand
services; lack of business and
marketing skills; lack of
information sharing
mechanisms; difficult to get
farmers to the same level of
understanding as developers
Micro finance missing in their system
Wide coverage of the
PLS. They follow an
integrated approach
ASARECA Desire to balance science and people impact
NA Umbrella for regional NARS
and commodity
networks, link to
CGIAR and
ARIs
NA
86
Appendix 7: Development and Research Entry Points
The low yields of food crops within the pilot learning site are largely the result of the reduced
yield potential of unimproved landraces confounded by diminishing soil fertility and
uncontrolled pests and diseases. The Farm Input Supply case study (Section 6.2) concluded
that few farmers plant improved, disease-resistant crop varieties or apply fertilizers and
pesticides except for farmers who are required to meet industry standards and are well
connected to markets (see Section 6.5). Clearly, increased use of purchased key farm inputs
is an important first step to increasing food crop yield (Figure 8). In many settings, both the
availability of those inputs and the capacity for farmers‘ investment must be expanded.
Fertilizers in particular should be applied at rates that optimize returns per unit input rather
than larger amounts intended to maximize returns per unit land determined through
diminishing returns. Several accompanying technologies compliment the use of fertilizers
and improved crop varieties. Soil erosion must be contained and crop rotations and
intercrops undertaken that reduce pest and disease and improve nutrient recycling.
Combining organic and mineral inputs often increases the benefits from the applying smaller
amounts of fertilizer. Increasing yields beyond household food needs is not sufficient to
uplift households from poverty unless farmers‘ market intelligence and opportunities are
correspondingly improved. Farmers must improve post-harvest handling operations and
storage facilities in order to meet quality standards of top end buyers and remain competitive
within the marketplace. Clearly, a suite of interventions is required to raise household
incomes yet field operations and enterprises that diverge too drastically from farmer‘s tested
practice are unlikely to receive widespread adoption. Furthermore, interventions must not
overestimate the capacity for poor rural households to invest in farm inputs or to repay loans
even when incentives such as low interest or revolving loans are in place.
Field visits and interviews with different stakeholders suggest that there are a few success
stories of farmers groups and entrepreneurs who have accessed profitable market
opportunities and attempted to develop profitable and sustainable enterprises. The lessons
learned in these ―success cases‖ have the potential to be scaled out and up to other areas and
institutions. Research efforts must focus on understanding, distilling and promoting the
critical success factors and driving forces of these success, and developing effective
strategies, tools and products that can help in scaling up these models within and outside the
PLS. Understanding the distributional effects of these different models of linking farmers to
markets is still a research challenge that needs to be addressed. Undertaking IAR4D in ways
that are more empowering of the poor, in particular by helping them acquire the capacity to
identify more profitable agroenterprises, and to participate in high value agricultural markets
is a research challenge.
87
expand availability of farm inputs
purchase
fertilizers
maintain
increase use of farm inputs
purchase
improved
varieties
control
extend
loans
improve
improve capacity for investment
repay
revolving soil fertility
apply
pest & disease crop varieties loans
improve
fertilizers initiate
IPM
plant
improved nutrient
recycling reduce
soil
erosion
increase crop yields
improve
varieties
outcompete within
raise income
post-harvest
handling
the marketplace
conserve lands
achieve food security
produce farm surpluses
improve
storage
escape from
poverty
process to
add value
diversify
livelihood
strategy
Figure 8. Interventions (italics) for small-scale farmers targeting the improvement of
field crop yields in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site and their intended outcomes.
Organisational change in this programme connotes the institutionalization of IAR4D in
the region and necessitates the involvement of a wider range of stakeholder in research and
the ability to facilitate and co-ordinate multi-stakeholder research and learning processes.
Organisational change should be seen in people‘s skills and attitudes, processes and
procedures and the necessary adjustment in structures. The managers of organisations and
institutions need skills to drive and mange the change process. Organisational change also
requires policy changes too to allow latitude for re-organisation to fit into the desired
management framework for IAR4D. Capacity development for organisational change targets
the individual to enhance their participation and specific contribution; teams, to enhance
working together in multi-stakeholder processes, organisations, to create platforms for
learning together; and inter-institutional to facilitate the formation of multi-dimensional
research and development teams. Capacity building institutions have observed that the
challenge in developing IAR4D competences is how to ensure simultaneous capacity
development for all stakeholder groups at different levels of the innovation system‖ (Daane,
2003). A major challenge is to understand the constraints to policy implementation and
provide adequate information and technical support to policy makers. The major thrusts of
policy research in the Lake Kivu PLS should therefore be not only to guide policy
formulation but also to enlighten policymakers on the appropriate implementation strategy
through closer dialogue and interaction. The entry points for agricultural research focused
upon poverty alleviation, natural resourse protection and rural enterprise development follow.
88
1. Characterization of banana germplasm, disease management, yield improvement
and processing. The Pilot Learning Site falls within a secondary Center of Diversity of
banana. It is an important food and cash crop and its production is being compromised by
banana wilt disease and poor nutrient management. Interdisciplinary research on banana
targeting its selection, management and commercial applications offers the potential to
generate findings useful to the research systems within the Pilot Learning Site, and
millions of small-scale banana producers elsewhere in Africa.
2. Overcoming bean production constraints. Beans are the most important source of
protein within the Pilot Learning Center but its productivity is compromised by several
constraints. Farmers and agricultural officers expressed concern over uncontrolled root
rot and bean fly. Climbing beans have a modest potential for symbiotic nitrogen fixation
(BNF) but managements designed to maximize BNF and better recycle crop residues are
not well understood. Furthermore, the staking required for climbing beans poses huge
resource and labor requirements to farmers but offers potential to positively interact with
soil conservation interventions and other farm enterprises. Great potential exists for
beans to become more widely marketed but top-end buyers insist upon uniformity, and
diversity of bean size and color grown by farmers pose a challenge to its collective
marketing.
3. Improved potato cultivation and marketing. Potato is an extremely important crop
within the Pilot Learning Site, particularly within the higher elevations where other crops
become limited by low temperature. Farmers expressed concerns over the availability
and quality of seed tubers, difficult to control pests and diseases (particularly late blight),
susceptibility to drought and unfair markets. Potato cultivation requires two major
disturbances of soil, one to plant and the other to harvest, and this interacts with soil
conservation concerns. Research focused upon finding practical solutions to potato
production and marketing constraints will find immediate application among a large
number of small-scale farmers.
4. Better livestock breeds. Increasing livestock production within the site will be enhanced
by development and introduction of suitable livestock breeds and species. In areas the
Validation Team visited, the farmers expressed preference for dairy production under
zero grazing due to limited land for grazing, however, few are actually raising improved
breeds under confinement. Some of the range lands can also accommodate goats and
beef cattle. In all cases, acquisition of stocking material is a problem. In some areas,
animals for zero grazing are provided by the Heifer Project International. Eastern DRC
lost most of their animals during civil war and is just being restocked with goats which
will later be sold to purchase cattle. It is therefore important that sufficient stocking
breeds are available.
5. Integrated livestock feeding systems. The Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site is intensively
cropped and area for pasture development is limited. There is also limited tree and shrub
cover leaving limited browsing for goats. Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) offers
largely unexploited potential as a hedgerow crop for both feed and soil conservation. It
is problematic finding sufficient feed for livestock and can be worse during the dry
season. Intensification of livestock within smallholds will be faced with the challenge of
inadequate feed resources and research is required to design integrated, low cost feeding
systems.
89
6. Managing livestock and diseases. Livestock production within the site is plagued by
livestock pests and diseases, reducing productivity and herd growth. Examples are East
Coast Fever and other tick-borne disease, mastitis and reproductive diseases. The site is
also in the stretch that has been involved in outbreaks of major infectious diseases such as
contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia. Most areas have stockists offering veterinary
supplies but veterinarians are few and farmers are not well acquainted with diagnostic
procedures. Research is required to develop appropriate, low cost, livestock disease
programs and to explain them to farmers. Competitive livestock productivity will not be
achieved even with good breeds unless there are technologies for effective management
and control of diseases.
7. Value addition. Dairy and other livestock are marketed raw and this reduces the prices at
farm level. The lack of agro-processing also reduces sales as not all products are
consumed raw. This in turn may reduce production. For some products, only primary
processing is possible, e.g. the cooling of milk. Secondary processing is also possible on
farm and off-farm for products like ghee, cheese and yoghurt. Processing into more
diverse products will require specialised equipment and skills. Issues that are inherent in
value addition are the post harvest losses. The main challenge is how to attract and
encourage investment in value addition for livestock products. The second is the
development of easy to use on-farm post harvest handling methods that will help to
increase the storage and transportation period of livestock products.
8. Horizontal transfer of maize-based and zero grazing farm enterprises from the
Kenyan Highlands and elsewhere. Farming opportunities are more advanced in the not-
too-distant Kenyan highlands and many of these can find immediate application within
the Pilot Learning Site. Foremost among these are maize-based and confined livestock
enterprises and their interactions. Several improved open pollinated maize varieties and
hybrids are commercially available in Kenya that should be evaluated in the Lake Kivu
PLS. The use of insecticidal and fungicidal seed dressing greatly improves crop
emergence, economizing on seed. Substituting hybrid maize or disease –resistant legume
seed for traditional landraces may increase yields by 60% to 120%. Combining these
technologies with modest pre-plant and top-dressed mineral fertilizers (34 kg N and 5 kg
P ha-1
) increases yields by another 25% to 50%. Yields increase another 7% when 2 t of
farmer‘s compost is substituted for pre-plant fertilizers and 10% when maize rows are
staggered into a 2x2 arrangement. Relay intercropping of climbing beans with maize may
offer an alternative to staking. Smallholder dairy operations offer a steady income flow
that is required among smallholders. This entry point is somewhat downstream along
the research and development continuum but this permits opportunity for immediate
involvement of development organizations and grassroots groups within adaptive on-farm
research. Improved technologies, such as maize-legume intercropping or livestock
feeding systems, can be ―packaged‖ for testing and evaluation by farmers. This approach
would offer a first-wave impact within the Pilot Learning Site because little background
research and development is required prior to the initiation of field activities.
9. Explore smallholders’ market intelligence and information. The Lake Kivu Pilot
Learning Site can expand economic opportunities in the agriculture sector by increasing
sales and jobs for agriculture-related businesses, however, it must have a business
oriented-image to do this. The entry point into the market chain is at the farm level and
the objective here is to develop supporting supply chain in response to demand. From
there, entrepreneurs who can fulfil the role of market linkages can work with various
90
segments of the market chain to produce the greatest impact and generate maximum
revenue for clients and producers in select commodities by stimulating functioning supply
chains in response to a specific market demand. Where should market information kiosks
be located and what services are required? How can they become self-supporting unless
they also serve as collection points? What is the role of telecommunications in
information delivery to small-scale farmers? Several areas of research are necessary to
better understand and deliver improved market intelligence.
10. Improve produce quality. Increased access to top-end markets requires that industry
standards be maintained. Many perceive smallholders as producing inferior produce in
large part because they are unaware of quality criteria and lack the simplest post-harvest
processing tools. Furthermore, quality testing is often offered for a fee that poorer farmers
cannot afford. How can quality control standards be introduced to and maintained by
farmers? What new tools are required and for which crops? How can quality be assured
while crops are being bulked by several different farmers? What penalties should be
imposed among members of collective marketing groups who are unable to meet
minimum grades? Research on quality control is required before many most top-end
markets can become approached.
11. Targeting new markets with existing products. Market expansion for existing products
is one means to encourage farmers to produce and market larger crop surpluses. This
approach requires market, institutional, policy, and social innovations to empower
farmers to increase their bargaining power and become more competitive through
association with market chain actors. Research is needed to identify and forge linkages
with the different actors involved in the supply chain and to clearly delineate the market
requirements, in terms of volumes, frequency of sales, quality parameters and potential
prices.
12. Add value to available produce. Adding value to produce improves access to both
existing and new markets. Mechanisms for value addition include better grading,
strategic storage, better packaging and processing ―produce into products‖. These
strategies can be applied to numerous commodities including potatoes, passion fruits,
soybeans, tomatoes, honey, and dairy products. It is intended to increasing the
competitiveness of small-scale farmers and better linking them to the private sector.
Research into market institutional innovations that support the transition from production
to agro-processing and value addition is required to improve product quality and
competitiveness of small entrepreneurs.
13. Diversification into high value products with high returns to land and labour. This
approach includes temperate and tropical fruits, organic vegetable production, spices,
cosmetic and medicinal plants, and a variety of horticultural crops. Higher value crops
and products will inevitably mean a shift to work with higher order private sector players,
causing a shift away from traditional partners. High value agricultural products are
however often perishable and targeting specialized niche markets with high quality
standards that resource poor farmers may not able to meet. The challenge for R4D is to
develop mechanisms and strategies for facilitating the participation of resource poor
farmers in high value agricultural markets, and assess the distributional effects of high
value crops and agricultural products. This may require investments in advocacy to
support new policy options in marketing for specific groups, locations and market chains,
and for land use mapping and consolidation
91
14. Strengthen farmer associations. Research should focus on strengthening farmer
organizations capacities and abilities to diversify into higher value products, increase their
bargaining power and influence pricing in agricultural markets. Research should assess
the different forms of organization and collective action to support different agro-
enterprises for overcoming transaction costs, distribution of benefits and risks between
smallholders and market agents; and for reducing the negative social, environmental and
economic effects stemming from transition to market oriented production. This type of
research will need to identify the ways and mechanisms in which farmers‘ organizations
function and how impacts can be enhanced to stimulate new income opportunities for the
rural poor, especially for women and creating marketing platforms for smallholder
producers.
15. Explore market innovations. The establishment of more efficient business and
enterprise development services BDS will require research to assess the demand for new
services, to detect the strengths and weaknesses of the services and institutions at
different points in the value chains. This assessment should provide an overall
quantitative and qualitative analysis to identify important gaps in service provision, and
design new enterprise and business development support services as well as innovative
market institutions for promoting efficient marketing systems such as microfinance,
market information systems, business development services, pricing policies, input
marketing, extension advice, and rural infrastructure.
16. Better hillside management. There are several management alternatives that could be
employed to reduce soil erosion and consequent land degradation. Terracing has been
used in the PLS over time, but we observed extensive destruction of terrace bunds on
cultivated hillsides, either because they are not strengthened/stabilised and are too weak
to hold or in search of the more fertile soil deposited from the top of the terrace. In most
cases, the bunds also form boundary delineations between plots of different farmers. In
some cases, land is abandoned when it can no longer support annual crops. Opportunities
exist for rehabilitation of the unstable bunds, over worked terrace soils and abandoned
lands. We identified development and utilisation of productive multiple hedge plant
species in bund stabilisation and as sources of organic inputs or fodder for livestock as an
important area for research. Transition from annual crops to perennial high value crop
enterprises minimize tillage and offer greater protection through canopy cover, but there
is minimum research data to support the enterprises. Because of limited land holdings,
these enterprises are better developed at community level.
17. Better wetland utilization. The functions of wetlands are varied and include water
storage, nutrient cycling, particulate removal, maintenance of plant and animal
communities, water filtration and groundwater recharge. They reduce damage from
flooding, improve water quality and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife. Maintaining
these functions and values presents a challenge for science to derive strategies for
incorporating wetlands management in farming, grazing and fishing that must also serve
to conserve the ecosystem, biodiversity and sustainable productivity (incompatibilities
between resource activities and the objectives of protection and conservation).
18. Domesticating threatened biodiversity. The domestication of non-timber forest
products outside protected areas and converting them into income generating projects like
beekeeping, mushroom production, planting of bamboo and agro-forestry projects would
92
decrease the pressure for deforestation for agriculture and for energy. The domestication
and commercialisation of beneficial insect, plant and fungal species to decrease the effect
misuse on biodiversity and increase the income of people living around protected areas.
The process of domestication is largely a research issue that involves several scientific
disciplines.
19. Replacing eucalyptus. Large differences exist concerning the comparative benefits of
eucalyptus, and to a lesser extent wattle trees. Some see them as biological invaders and
a post-colonial artifact. Others consider them welcome woody biomass within an
otherwise deforested landscape. It is certain that eucalyptus grows where many multi-
purpose, indigenous tree species once stood. The merits of eucalyptus and its replacement
with other trees, and the field operations achieving that end deserve research attention.
20. Expand organisational capacities. Capacity development will target both the supply
and demand sides of the innovation systems. On the supply side, focus will be on
national agricultural research systems, concentrating on empowering research managers
to enable them understand IAR4D process and have the skills and attitudes for facilitating
the change process. Key areas include, but are not limited to, research planning and
management within innovation systems approach, monitoring and evaluation of research,
including impact assessment, building and managing partnerships, lobbying and
negotiation skills, organizational development, change management and leadership skills.
The farmer organisations will be the main focus on the demand side. The main objective
will be to empower them with competences that will enhance their role in decision
making and demand articulation.
21. Facilitate organizational innovation. Developing sustainable community agroenterprise
for smallholder farmers is a relatively long and intensive process that requires effective
facilitation by a number of partners, with shared visions and commitments. The success
of agroenterprise development efforts will be highly dependent on the development and
strengthening of effective quality partnerships with farmers‘ organizations (producer and
marketing associations) and market chain actors, specifically with private business sector,
business development services, research and development and government agencies.
22. Mobilize multi-stakeholder learning teams. Learning together by action and reflection
will strengthen the institutionalization of IAR4D. Learning events that hinge around the
seeking of solution to interlinked complex issues will enhance the institutionalization of
multi-stakeholder innovation research. Formation of inter-institutional, multi-disciplinary
teams will be encouraged and the teams will participate in learning events to increase
their capacity for identifying and solving development issues. The teams must have,
among other things, harmonious understanding of innovation systems concept,
stakeholder analysis, working in teams, negotiation and conflict resolution, participatory
market analysis, action research, scenarios & strategies, social organization / decision
making and screening for environmental and social impacts. They also need soft skills
that are vital for working together. Skills for facilitating multi-stakeholder processes,
knowledge and information management will also be important.
23. Better information and knowledge management. This addresses the challenges
inherent in management and utilization of formal and informal knowledge and
information. The development of mechanisms for effective collection, analysis and
dissemination of information is necessary for building knowledge data bases, lesson
93
sharing and effective monitoring and evaluation for institutional learning. Key research
questions derived from the ―Armed with Knowledge Hypothesis‖ will be entry points for
testing this hypothesis and will offer opportunity for developing methods and approaches
for integrating relevant knowledge systems into agricultural management models. Key
questions include: What forms of information that accompany pioneering agricultural
technologies and new products are required and how are they best distributed? How can
farmer information become transformed to make it more understandable to agricultural
specialists engaged in problem solving and, just as importantly, vice versa? How can
environmentally and socially responsible actions, such as reforestation, soil conservation
and watershed quality protection be better explained to local communities and reconciled
with their routine land management operations and household activities?
24. Conduct policy analysis. Research must examine the extent to which policies provide
incentives to small-scale farmers to improve their livelihoods and the extent to which
these policies support agro-enterprise development and natural resource management
strategies within their reach. Assessing their effectiveness and impacts on small scale
farmers is an area for policy research. For instance, research is needed to understand the
impact of trade and the factors responsible for the type of impact on different categories
of market actors. Understanding constraints in the implementation of different policies
could be another area for research.
25. Refine policy formulation and implementation. Omamo (2003) recommends a
different approach to policy research focusing on piloting action research in case studies
of innovative approaches for identifying convincing how to answers. However, with few
exceptions, efforts have not focused on increasing local participation in policy review and
formulation (Scoones and Thompson 2003). At the community level, there have been
successful examples of local policy formulation and implemention e.g. byelaws for
watershed management in Karambo and Kisoro. The challenge is to translate and link
local level policy processes to high level policy mechanisms. The whole area of
environmental and NRM governance in buffer zones, of common pool resources, and
watershed management could be an entry point. This could also include developing
conflict management mechanisms, and building skills in conflict management.
26. Advance policy dialogue and advocacy. Despite the recognition that policy processes
are important for sustainable livelihood outcomes and natural resources management,
there is concern that NRM research and technology development have not been reflected
in policy change, nor have they affected decision-making processes of wider
communities. Through action research and collective learning processes, researchers can
develop policy scenarios using tools such as policy analysis matrix and devise more
effective strategies for connecting research and policy makers, and using research results
to influence policy decision-making. Based on research findings, stakeholders could
engage in policy advocacy and dialogue e.g. through workshops, seminars and policy
briefs.
94
Appendix 8. Tentative Logical Framework for the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site Super goal: Contributing to poverty elimination in Sub-Saharan Africa
Goal: Improve food security, income, environmental sustainability and livelihoods of small holder
farmers in the LK PLS
Outcome 1
Increased utilization of demand driven
technologies to improve
agricultural productivity and conserve natural
resources
Outcome 2
Diversified enterprise options and improved
market access
Outcome 3
Organizational capacity of stakeholders for
impact oriented research
enhanced
Outcome 4
Decision-making capacity for agricultural policy
analysis, formulation and
implementation enhanced
Output 1.1
Technological innovations for
increasing productivity
and competitiveness of
crop and livestock
systems developed,
tested and adopted by farmers
Activities
1.1.1 Develop profitable and
resilient
agricultural
technologies
for pest and
diseases management of
major crops
(banana,
cassava,
potatoes,
beans, fruits)
using
biotechnology and other
approaches
1.1.2 Expand
availability,
accessibility
and use of
necessary farm inputs
1.1.3 Conduct
strategic and
on farm
adaptive
research for the
introduction
and adaptation
of new high
value crop
varieties that
have market demand.
1.1.4 Strengthen
Output 2.1
Increased capacities of farmers‘ organizations
and entrepreneurs to
access better market
opportunities
Activities
2.1.1 Conduct market
chain research to
identify and promote
opportunities for
enterprise
diversification
and value addition of agro
enterprises
2.1.2 Develop
approaches, tools and materials for
strengthening
capacities of
farmers
organizations,
entrepreneurs
and their service providers to
undertake market
chain analysis
2.1.3 Develop
integrated agro
enterprise
options for high
value crops that
have market
demands
Output 3.1
Institutional change mechanisms for market
responsive
and client oriented
research promoted
Activities
3.1.1 Promote
institutional
change towards inter-
disciplinary and
multi-
stakeholder
collaboration
3.1.2 Develop
capacity that
support the
Integrated Research for
Development
paradigm
3.1.3 Develop participatory
monitoring,
evaluation and
impact
assessment tools
for IAR4D
3.1.4 Enhance
capacity for
diagnosis and
management of
pests and
diseases,
including
molecular and
conventional
tools for
breeding for
pest and insect
resistance
Output 4.1
Increased capacity for analysis
formulation and
implementation of
enabling agricultural and
trade policies
Activities
4.1.1 Identify policy incentives,
constraints and
opportunities for
land consolidation, natural resource
management,
biodiversity
conservation and
marketing
4.1.2 Provide research
information, tools and skills to guide policy
formulation and
implementation
4.1.3 Develop tools
and products that
influence uptake
of research
results to guide
policy design,
formulation and
implementation.
4.1.4 Strengthen farmers
organizations
and rural
communities to
forge collective
action processes in NRM, and
agroenterprise
development
policies.
95
seed systems
and
dissemination
mechanisms of
improved
varieties
96
Output 1.2
Integrated natural resource management strategies developed and
implemented
Activities
1.2.1 Promote more
effective integrated soil, water and
nutrient
management for hillside
conservation
1.2.2 Develop and
promote
strategies for
rational
utilization and
rehabilitation of wetlands and
marshlands for
provision of
environmental
services, food
and income 1.2.3 Identify on-farm
niches for multi-
purpose trees
1.2.4 Identify and
promote
alternative
enterprises in
buffer zones to
protect of
biodiversity
hotspots and
domestication of
beneficial non-
timber forest products
1.2.5 Forge collective
action processes
for hillside
conservation,
conflict
management,
and
environmental
conservation
1.2.6 Conduct an
inventory of
INRM
technologies
and translate
existing
knowledge into
tools and
products for
Output 2.2
Value addition and diversification of agricultural products
enhanced
Activities
2.2.1 Conduct market chain analysis of high value crops
to identify
critical points
and develop
strategies for
increasing their
competitiveness
in the value
chain.
2.2.2 Identify and
promote market
institutional
innovations that
benefits poor
farmers,
especially
women (micro-
finance, credit,
collective
marketing,
taxes)
2.2.3 Develop strategies and
mechanisms for
scaling out/up
successful
agroenterprises.
Output 3.2 Capacity of Pilot Learning
Teams in impact oriented
research strengthened
Activities
3.2.1 Facilitate and
improve farmer
organization capacity to
experiment and
adapt
technologies and
innovations in
support of their
enterprises
3.2.2 Increase skills of
small holder
producers and
their service
providers to
initiate and
manage
associations for
collective action
in NRM and
marketing
3.2.3 Develop
strategies for
scaling out the
islands of success
3.2.4 Develop skills in
community
based monitoring
and evaluation
and information sharing systems
Output 4.2
Platforms and mechanisms for policy advocacy and dialogue
established
Activities
4.2.1 Conduct impact assessment and policy analysis
studies on
uptake processes and develop
policy options and
recommendation
s for upscaling
research results
4.2.2 Facilitate platforms for policy action
research,
dialogue and
advocacy
4.2.3 Build skills in
alternative
conflict
management in
buffer zones 4.2.4 Conduct
comparative
studies on the
performance and
effectiveness of
different policies
in Agriculture,
NRM, trade and
market
4.2.5 Facilitate
mechanisms for
harmonization
of national
policies and
development of
regional policy
frameworks on
plant genetic
resources,
animal health,
biosafety, seed
and inputs,
trade, and
research
cooperation
4.2.6 Disseminate lessons and
guidelines for
strengthening
policy analysis,
formulation,
97
different user
groups. implementation
and impact
assessment.
98
Output 1.3
Integrated crop-livestock systems intensified
Activities
1.3.1 Evaluate options
for improving the
integration of
crop-livestock
production
systems
1.3.2 Build capacity for
diagnosis and
management of
livestock health
and feeding
systems
1.3.3 Promote value
addition of
livestock products
along the resource-
consumption chain
1.3.4 Genetic
improvement
options
Output 2.3
Improved market access for staples and high value products
Activities
2.3.1 Strengthen farmer organizations skills and marketing
institutional
innovations to
facilitate market
access, collective
action and business
development
services.
2.3.2 Identify and reduce bottlenecks in
promoting exports
and improve quality
standards
2.3.3 Forge strong
alliances amongst market chain actors
2.3.4 Establish business
promotion services
for selected
commodities
Output 3.3
Management and sharing of knowledge and information (tools and products) to
improve decision making
enhanced
Activities
3.3.1 Establish base-line data and databases on agricultural
production and
production
systems,
marketing,
institutions,
biodiversity, NRM
and best practices
in the LK PLS
3.3.2 Translate available
information into
user friendly products and tools
3.3.3 Develop
communication
strategy and
information
dissemination mechanisms
3.3.4 Establish market
information
systems within the PLS